Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LONDON [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SERVICES

Hospitals (Hackney)

Mr. Clinton Davis: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make an official visit to hospitals in the London borough of Hackney.

The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Dr. Gerard Vaughan): The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) has already been to see me and I have told him that I shall include the City and Hackney health district in my official programme of visits in the near future.

Mr. Davis: I thank the Minister. Is he aware that there is appalling deprivation in that part of London? Is he also aware that the regional health authority has indicated that Hackney must make further cuts when that is quite impossible? Is it not completely irresponsible for the RHA to take that view?

Dr. Vaughan: No, it is not irresponsible. We are aware of the great needs in this part of London. Is not the hon. Member pointing out the disastrous situation that was left by the previous Government, whose policies led to increasing

difficulties for the inner city areas and created great hardships for this part of London?

Mr. Ronald W. Brown: I thank the Minister for his meeting with me and his agreement to come to Hackney. Is it not a fact that, as a result of the Chancellor's increased VAT, an extra £3,500,000 has been added to the bill of the regional health authority?

Dr. Vaughan: Once again the hon. Member is drawing attention to the appalling situation left by the previous Government.

Mr. Davis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the appalling and disgraceful nature of that reply, I give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Pensioners (Bonus)

Mr. Foulkes: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will consider giving a special bonus of £16 to single pensioners and £25 to married pensioners to take account of the shortfall in their pensions due to the inaccurate forecast of the level of inflation made in calculating the last pension increase.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): No, Sir. The increased pension rates which we shall introduce from November take account of the shortfall in the rates introduced by the previous Administration last November. There is no statutory requirement to do even this and, in view of the urgent need to reduce public expenditure, we cannot do more.

Mr. Foulkes: Will the hon. Lady agree that the changes to be made in pensions will only allow prospectively for the miscalculation, and not for the miscalculation in the current year? Is she aware that in the current year pensioners are losing out by the amount that I quoted in my question? Will she take the opportunity of the Bill dealing with the Christmas bonus to introduce a summer bonus as well to make good that shortfall?

Mrs. Chalker: I am afraid that we cannot do that. As the hon. Member knows, if he looks back at the statement of my right hon. Friend, we have corrected the 1·9 per cent. shortfall that the pensioners


suffered. That will have to suffice in the present economic situation.

Mr. Paul Dean: Will my hon. Friend comment on the fact that the Government propose to increase pensions by 19·5 per cent., whereas the previous Administration's proposal amounted to only 12·8 per cent.?

Mrs. Chalker: It has been necessary to make up not only the 17·5 per cent. uprating in line with the forecasts for price increases, many of which were held back in the previous four months, but to make good the 1·9 per cent. shortfall that resulted from the November 1978 up-rating.

Mr. Rooker: rose—

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I never thought that I would see the hon. Member on the Front Bench.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) may find himself there one day, with a bit of luck.

Mr. Rooker: He did, Mr. Speaker, but he did not last very long.
If the Government miscalculate their inflation forecast of 17½ per cent., will they do what the previous Government did and promise to make good the shortfall?

Mrs. Chalker: I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) on his elevation to the Opposition Front Bench. The hon. Gentleman takes far too pessimistic a view. Of course, we shall consider the effect of this year's uprating when we have the actual price movements to November. But I cannot make any forward predictions. It would be foolish for anybody in this House to do so.

National Health Service (Royal Commission Report)

Mr. Colin Shepherd: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when the Royal Commission on the National Health Service is expected to report.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): I understand that the Royal Commission expects to report next month.

Mr. Shepherd: Will my right hon. Friend await the report of the Royal Commission before turning his attention to the future of Motability? Does he recognise the importance of the role of this organisation to the disabled, and is he aware that it may not now be able to fulfil its avowed function?

Mr. Jenkin: I am aware of that concern. I am happy to be able to announce that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be laying an order as soon as possible which will relieve Motability of the effect of the Value Added Tax (Cars) Order 1977. While the regular leasing charges paid by Motability clients will still bear VAT, the organisation will now be able to recover all the input tax paid on cars. This concession, along with the £2 increase in mobility allowance, will allow Motability to operate on better terms than those which obtained before the Budget.

Mr. William Hamilton: While he is waiting for the Royal Commission report, will the right hon. Gentleman examine the representations which are currently being made by health visitors, midwives and other community nurses? Is it not clear to the right hon. Gentleman that the car and mileage allowances for such nurses are completely out of line with current rates of inflation? Will he urgently examine the position?

Mr. Jenkin: This is not a matter on which I expect the Royal Commission to say a great deal, but my right hon. Friend the Minister of State has been examining the matter. The tax treatment of car allowances is being applied in exactly the same way as it applies to other taxpayers.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Before the Royal Commission reports, will my right hon. Friend give weighty consideration to the opposition within the country to the establishment of mixed wards within the National Health Service? Is he aware that there is an increasing number of people, particularly those patients who seek to enter hospital for urgent treatment, strongly opposed to the trend which is developing within the NHS of establishing mixed wards? I accept that there is need for this practice in intensive


care units, but will he ensure that this trend does not develop any further?

Mr. Jenkin: I am well aware of the widespread concern expressed about the growth of mixed wards. My Department is currently studying the subject to see how best to resolve the problem.

Mr. Orme: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we shall closely examine the proposed statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject of Motability? No doubt we shall return to the matter when we consider the Finance Bill.
If the report of the Royal Commission is published next month, when the House is in recess, will the report be made available outside the House? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is great interest in the report, and that we believe that immediately the report is laid there should be public debate as well as a debate in this House?

Mr. Jenkin: I accept that there will be great interest in the Royal Commission's report. It has received an enormous volume of evidence and has been studying the subject for over two and a half years. I hope that the report will be presented before the House rises. If that happens, I expect to make a statement to the House on how we should handle the matter. I can confidently promise the right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) that there will be a full debate on its recommendations.

Society of Radiographers

Mr. Temple-Morris: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has any plans to meet the Society of Radiographers.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Sir George Young): The president and council of the Society and College of Radiographers kindly invited my right hon. Friend to attend the inauguration of their president for 1979–80. Unfortunately, he will not be able to attend the inauguration personally, but I am very pleased to attend on his behalf.

Mr. Temple-Morris: Delighted as I am that my hon. Friend is to attend this important function, may I ask whether he is aware that as a result of represent-

tations made by the society, nurses in the cottage hospitals in my area are unable to take simple X-rays? Since much of this exercise is water under the bridge, so to speak, will the Minister do his very best to ensure that—if we have to pay more for the Society of Radiographers to conduct X-rays—a regular service will be provided and that, even more important, X-ray services will remain in cottage hospitals throughout the country?

Sir G. Young: I have some sympathy for the cause which my hon. Friend has championed in past months. However, I am advised that both for the protection of patients and to obtain the best use from diagnostic X-ray equipment it is preferable to use staff trained in radiography.

Hospital Beds (Essex)

Mr. Newens: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many hospital beds in the Essex area are at present unused owing to lack of funds.

Dr. Vaughan: Regrettably, 10 mental illness beds at Princess Alexandra hospital, Harlow, were temporarily closed last year. These beds are due to reopen on 1 July.

Mr. Newens: Is the Minister aware that the number of unused beds in the district is much greater than his answer indicates? Is it not a disgrace that wards and beds lie unused while waiting lists for operations lengthen and while facilities for geriatric, psycho-geriatric, mentally handicapped and young chronically sick patients are most inadequate, particularly in the Harlow area? Will he take steps to ensure that adequate money is made available and that there are no further cuts?

Dr. Vaughan: I greatly sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's feelings, although not with the way in which he expressed them. We are deeply concerned about the standard of care of patients, since those standards have been falling steadily in the past four or five years. We now have an appalling situation in which beds are empty but waiting lists are steadily lengthening.

Mr. Neubert: How many hospital beds are unused in the metropolitan Essex area as a result of area health authorities closing wards in small cottage


hospitals in advance of statutory consultations? Is he aware that the children's ward in the Victoria hospital, Romford, has been closed for more than a year, presumably to pre-empt a decision on the future existence of that hospital?

Dr. Vaughan: Hospitals cannot be closed in advance of statutory consultations, except on a temporary basis. But we are clear that many people wish to keep their local hospitals. If there are no major medical reasons against this, why should these hospitals not be retained? Therefore, unlike the previous Government, we shall, wherever possible, keep open the small hospitals.

Mr. Ennals: Is it not likely that the cuts referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) are likely to happen all over the country, not only as a result of sticking to the rigid cash limits established by the Labour Government, but because of the VAT increase? With the level of inflation as high as it is, does this not amount to about a 3 per cent. cut in real terms for health authorities? Will not this produce disastrous results? What does the Minister intend to do about the position?

Dr. Vaughan: I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman's analysis of the financial position, although it is an appalling one and one which we have inherited from the previous Government. Is he not referring to examples of what he and I would like to see but which we now cannot afford nationally because of the financial chaos left by the previous Government?

One-Parent Families

Mr. Stan Thorne: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what immediate proposals he has to improve the standard of life for one-parent families.

Mrs. Chalker: I refer the hon. Member to the statements on the Budget and the uprating of social security benefits on 12 and 13 June.

Mr. Thorne: Since the hon. Lady in opposition showed concern for one-parent families, and in the light of the budgetary measures involving VAT increases, rises in the price of coal, and so on, may I ask what she intends to do now, when the

measures already announced by the Government will affect one-parent families?

Mrs. Chalker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing out these matters, but he will be aware that large areas of consumer spending—about half the total—are not chargeable to VAT. I refer to food, children's clothes, heating, lighting, public transport, house prices and rents—all of which are zero-rated. The poorer households tend to spend proportionately more of their income, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, on such zero-rated goods.

Mr. Molyneaux: Will the Minister consider ways to remove the disadvantages of widowers with young children as compared with widows in a similar position?

Mrs. Chalker: Widowers often face difficulties, particularly where there is no day care available for their children. The hon. Gentleman may well be referring specifically to that. We intend to look at all possible ways of providing day care so that widowers may be helped, as well as widows and other single parents, and thus continue in work wherever possible.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: Does my hon. Friend believe that the parent in charge of a child has ready access through the courts to remedy the situation if the other parent falls down on his or her obligations so that, in that way, allowances are kept up to date with inflation? If that is not the case, will the Government come forward with suitable recommendations to help the parent in charge of the family to gain such redress?

Mrs. Chalker: I am aware that many maintenance payments are not being paid and that that creates a continuing difficulty. We shall examine the matter as soon as we have had more time to consider other current matters.

Mr. Freeson: The hon. Lady, with her well-known interest in this matter, must be aware that her answers so far are not satisfactory. Does she agree that, with the prospect of a 17½ per cent. to 20 per cent. inflation rate over the coming months, something must be done to assist single-parent families? What do she and her colleagues propose to do to assist those families beyond the uprating which has been announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

Mrs. Chalker: As I said in answer to a previous question, we have taken account of, and concentrated the available resources on, those most in need. The FIS uprating and the child benefit increase have been designed specifically to help the lone parent first. The right hon. Gentleman is being unduly pessimistic about the uprating and the forecast for the increase in prices to November. If the assistance should fall short we shall look at the matter again.

Retirement Pensions (Payment by Giro)

Mr. Dodsworth: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is satisfied with the arrangement for the payment of retirement pensions in Giro cheque form following the delay in issuing pension books.

Mrs. Chalker: I very much regret the delay in the issue of some pension order books which resulted from a combination of factors. In addition to a change of computers at the Department's Newcastle central office, a nine-week overtime ban from 23 February to 30 April and delays in the postal service have had an adverse effect. We arranged to pay the affected pensioners by giro cheque in accordance with our normal procedures and these arrangements appear to have been satisfactory. I visited the Newcastle central office last week, and I know at first hand the efforts being made by management to recover normal working service.

Mr. Dodsworth: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that helpful reply. Does she accept that any delay of this nature in payments of pensions is critical to many of those involved? Furthermore, if delays occur in the issuing of pension books, with fresh increases later in the year that will increase the burden on those who are already in difficult circumstances. Will she instigate a complete inquiry into all the procedures concerned, in addition to the pension books?

Mrs. Chalker: First, I assure my hon. Friend that I am conducting an inquiry into the matters that were under way even before we took office. We are concerned that the industrial action which has recommenced will put pensioners and other beneficiaries in grave difficulties. The long history of industrial problems at Newcastle and Washington will take time and patience to resolve. We shall

do everything—including giving fresh information to local offices where necessary—to ensure that pensioners who do not receive their payment books will know that they have to go to their local office. We shall make arrangements for payments to be made through the local offices if the industrial action continues.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Will the Minister make the same arrangements for the payment of child benefits? Is she aware that some of my constituents are having to wait three months for those payments and, as many are on low incomes, the payments are an essential part of their incomes?

Mrs. Chalker: I regret to have to tell the hon. Gentleman that not only is there an overtime ban at the Washington child benefit centre but, in addition, a work to rule has been commenced. We deplore the action and we shall do all that we can to bring matters back to normal. In the meantime, we are examining urgently measures to help the parents who will not only be inconvenienced severely but put under great financial pressure. I advise hon. Members that any constituents writing to them should be told to go to their local office if they are in financial difficulty.

Flexible Retirement

Mr. McCrindle: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his policy on flexible retirement dates; and if he considers that these should apply to both men and women.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I recognise the case for greater flexibility in relation to retirement ages for both men and women. However, we need to give further consideration to the problems involved before we put forward proposals.

Mr. McCrindle: Has any progress been made to establish how many men wish to retire before 65 if they have the opportunity to do so? For that matter, is it known how many women would be prepared and anxious to go on working later than 60? Does my right hon. Friend agree that until there is better assessment of how many are in each category it is difficult to estimate the total cost that would be involved? Will he confirm that the long term aim of the Government is for sufficient flexibility in retirement so


that men and women may retire at any time between 60 and 65?

Mr. Jenkin: I give my hon. Friend that assurance. It is our long-term aim not only to see greater flexibility in retirement but progressively to ensure that there should be a move towards the same rules applying to both men and women. There is no strong feeling in the country against that proposition of which we are aware.

Mr. Newens: Does the Minister recognise that many men whose employment involves heavy manual labour are frequently obliged to give up work for health reasons long before the normal age of retirement? Is it not vital that these men should be rescued from the scrapheap and given an opportunity to retire early and carry on a reasonably decent form of life which, frequently, is not too rosy in its prospects anyway?

Mr. Jenkin: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is referring to the sort of scheme for partial retirement that, for example, is operated in Sweden. I have always seen the attractions of such a scheme. However, it is a proposition that will have to await the improved state of the economy before it can be contemplated.

Pensioners (Television Licence)

Mr. Skinner: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what recent representations he has had from pensioners' associations and others with regard to abolishing the television licence fee for pensioners; and if he will make a statement.

Mrs. Chalker: No representations have been received from pensioners' associations and only three have been received from members of the public. These have been referred to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department who has responsibility for setting the level of the licence fee.

Mr. Skinner: The Government would receive more representations if the pensioners could afford the stamps. I see that the Minister for Social Security is missing again—absent, as usual.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must come to his question.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that, while the Government have made serious attempts to make it easier for top-salaried people—Cabinet Ministers, Members of Parliament and so on—to be able to pay for their television licences, old-age pensioners are finding that television viewing is becoming dear? The price of electricity, a cup of tea, and cigarettes has risen—as well as VAT. When the Prime Minister returns from waddling round the world's capitals perhaps she will make a move—if she wants to impress the pensioners and their associations—to implement the Labour Party proposal to abolish the television licence.

Mrs. Chalker: I regret to have to tell the House that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security is ill. That is why he is not with us today.
As for the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question, he will know that it is a matter for the Home Office whether there should be any changes in the television licence fee for pensioners. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has answered that question already, on 18 May. For those in homes for the elderly there are already concessions and under local government powers financial assistance may be given to the needy pensioner for the television licence fee.

Mr. Waller: Is my hon. Friend aware that pensioners are upset that some are able to take advantage of a 5p licence while others, who are no better off financially, have to pay the full amount? Is she prepared to consider the introduction of a uniform licence fee for all pensioners, perhaps at half the full rate?

Mrs. Chalker: The question of the licence fee is not for my Department, but I am aware of the anomalies that occur in some local authority homes and we shall consider that problem.

Means Tests

Mr. Meacher: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his policy on means tests for social benefits.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Our first priority is to get the economy right. As living standards improve, so there should be less need for dependence on means-tested benefits.

Mr. Meacher: That is an optimistic reply. Are the Government still hankering after the tax credit scheme, or have they accepted that it would be too costly and would still leave millions on supplementary benefit anyway? If so, what alternative proposals have the Government to reverse the extension of the means-test State which their regressive policies in the Budget have made inevitable?

Mr. Jenkin: It is a bit rich for members of the previous Government to talk about the means-test State. Under Socialism there was a massive increase in means testing. The numbers on means-tested supplementary benefit went up by 1 million, the number of unemployed on means-tested supplementary benefit almost trebled, the number of children receiving the means-tested benefit of free school meals increased from 750,000 to well over a million and the number of families on means-tested housing benefits increased by 1 million. Had the Labour Party remained in power, that appalling record would have been crowned by a half-baked, half hearted means-tested benefit scheme for sixth formers. It does not lie in the mouths of Ministers in the previous Government to criticise means testing.

Mrs. Knight: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there can be no justification for paying public money unless the need for it has been established? Does he also agree that, although the phrase "means test" is emotive, the public will not easily forgive the payment of its money to any extended palm without a clear indication that the filling of that palm is necessary?

Mr. Jenkin: It has been the policy of successive Governments to seek to maintain and, where possible, to increase the real value of the contributory benefits under the national insurance scheme to which beneficiaries are entitled as of right without means testing. However, the chairman of the Supplementary Benefits Commission has repeatedly drawn attention to the fact that it is a feature of the pattern of the post-war period that those who have had to rely on means-tested supplementary benefits, instead of being the small residue which was envisaged when the scheme was introduced, have reached very large num-

bers. That is something to which the Government will be giving attention.

Mr. Orme: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the proposed introduction of free television licences for pensioners was one way in which the previous Government were to move away from means testing? Is he aware that our proposal for a new pension scheme, to float pensioners off means testing, would have been another positive step forward? Does he realise that his Government's proposals, particularly on VAT and increases in the cost of living, will put more people, not fewer, on means testing?

Mr. Jenkin: I am astonished that the right hon. Gentleman should refer to his party's proposal for free television licences for pensioners when he, as one of the Ministers involved, must know that there was not one penny piece provided in the Government's Estimates to pay for that proposal.

Community Health Councils

Mr. Stanbrook: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is satisfied that community health councils are alone sufficient to meet the need for public participation in Health Service affairs.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Community health councils should be informed, responsible and responsive local forums for discussions of local health services, but I do not see them as the only means of public participation.

Mr. Stanbrook: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Bromley area health authority has recently refused to meet the Orpington Nurses and Citizens Association, which is the only local body taking a professional interest in the Orpington hospital, on the ground that the community health council is the only appropriate body for public participation in local Health Service matters?
Having regard to the fact that the association has been denied membership of the community health council, is that not the sort of bureaucratic tyranny which public participation in the NHS was designed to prevent?

Mr. Jenkin: There should be room for flexibility in the arrangements and we


certainly do not regard community health councils as the only channel of communication. At the same time, we have to take a responsible and realistic view of the options facing area health authorities.
In the case to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention, the community health council felt that there was no way that it could find an alternative to the proposals being put forward. The Orpington Nurses and Citizens Association did not offer any alternative to the proposal recommended to the area health authority and it may have been that, in those circumstances, the area authority felt that no useful purpose would be served by a meeting.

Mr. Onslow: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are a large number of people in communities throughout the country who would like to participate in the well-being of their local hospitals by raising funds for them and offering voluntary services? Will he do everything he can to encourage that healthy trend?

Mr. Jenkin: That is indeed the policy of the Government, as indicated by the proposals that we announced shortly after the election for saving the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson hospital.

Mr. Christopher Price: If all the community health councils in the Lambeth, Lewisham and Southwark area health authority district meet the right hon. Gentleman and tell him that any cuts over and above the arrangements made with the authority by the previous Administration would so damage its service as to make it unworkable, will he guarantee that there will be no such further cuts?

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman must know that I could not conceivably give such a guarantee. The role of community health councils is to represent local people in the delivery of local health care services. Their representations should be made, therefore, to the local area health authority. The CHCs have a statutory power to object to specific proposals, such as hospital closures, and to require that I should consider closures before they take place.

Regional Secure Units

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps he proposes to take to ensure the early

establishment of regional secure psychiatric units for the mentally-disordered.

Dr. Vaughan: I refer the hon. Member to my reply to him on 12 June.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Does not the Minister consider it disgraceful that, five years after the units were recommended as a matter of great urgency and after £24 million has been given to regional health authorities, we still have not one single unit in existence? Is he aware that three regional authorities have not spent one penny of the money allocated to them for this purpose and that three others have not submitted plans to his Department? Will he call in the chairmen of every regional authority and insist that progress is made soon?

Dr. Vaughan: I am interested that the hon. Gentleman has pointed out the failures of the previous Government. My right hon. Friend and I share his concern about the lack of places in regional secure units. We should like to see more units for the sake of patients, nurses and the communities in which they are placed and we are urgently looking into the provision of units. We shall shortly be meeting the chairmen of regional authorities and this matter will be on the agenda.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I seldom, if ever, agree with the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk), but may I impress upon my hon. Friend the importance of secure units? Is he aware that many people are concerned that violent, mentally disordered patients are being allocated to hospitals without secure accommodation, and that this is creating great worry to the communities in which those hospitals are located? Will he therefore treat the matter with considerable urgency?

Dr. Vaughan: Yes, we will. I share my hon. Friend's concern. It is an appalling situation and we shall deal with it as quickly as we can.

National Health Service (Allocation of Resources)

Mr. McNally: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether it is still his policy that National Health Service financial resources should be reallocated in favour of deprived regions.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Yes, Sir, with the emphasis on levelling up, not levelling down.

Mr. McNally: Is the Secretary of State aware of the great amount that that pledge involves? The gap between the North-West and the best endowed authority is still over 20 per cent. and is reflected in the health care of the people of the North-West. In devoting more resources to the region, will the right hon. Gentleman particularly make sure that we do not have the economies of the madhouse, where capital investment, such as represented by the Stepping Hill geriatric unit, is then deprived of the funds adequately to staff it?

Mr. Jenkin: We have no plans to imitate the example of our predecessors, who, when faced with the problem of having to cut back on health care, chose to cut back on capital provision rather than offend their political susceptibilities by raising a little more money through prescription charges. I accept that there must be a continuing shift of resources towards the under-provided regions. That is the Government's policy.

Mr. Adley: Nevertheless, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that some regions and some parts of regions have particular problems with an elderly population? Will he make sure that this is one of the factors that his Department takes into account when the regional allocations come up for review?

Mr. Jenkin: Yes indeed, Sir. Because they could not be quantified, a number of factors were altogether left out of account in the Resource Allocation Working Party formula, and in the more recent studies by RAWP it is recommended that allowance be made for these non-quantifiable factors.

Pay Beds

Mr. John Evans: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is satisfied with the number of pay beds in the National Health Service.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: We have just issued a consultative letter on our proposals for legislation on independent hospital practice and on the future of pay beds, and a copy was placed in the Library yesterday.

Mr. Evans: Is the Secretary of State aware that many people regard the proposals that he announced yesterday as passing the buck from the Government down to the areas, and that the hospital unions are utterly opposed to the phasing out of the NHS boards? What criteria does the right hon. Gentleman intend to use to solve the many disputes which are bound to break out at local level about the phasing out of pay beds?

Mr. Jenkin: I know, from my discussions with the leaders of the NHS unions, that the overwhelming majority of the members of those unions believe in our democratic process and in the fact of the election, when the Conservative Party was elected on a clear and specific commitment in our manifesto. There has never been any secret about that. I believe that overwhelmingly the unions working in the NHS will recognise that this is a policy which is to be carried forward and that they will co-operate with it.

Mr. Paul Dean: I welcome my right hon. Friend's paper. Can he give an assurance that he will look for a variety of ways of building bridges between the NHS and the private sector, in order to ensure that more resources are available for health as a whole?

Mr. Jenkin: I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. We believe in co-operation and not in confrontation.

Mr. Moyle: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Opposition will oppose his plans for abolishing the NHS boards on the ground that a health service should be provided on the basis of medical priority and not on the power of the purse? Is he also aware that decisions on pay beds should be taken nationally, and that we oppose the idea that the matter should be left to local decision? What the right hon. Gentleman is trying to do is to force on reluctant area health authorities the courage of his convictions.

Mr. Jenkin: We recognise that it is the right hon. Gentleman's right to oppose the legislation that we hope to introduce later in the year. As for local determination, we believe that there is likely to be a much better resolution of such problems as may arise if they are handled by the people who are dealing with them locally on the ground rather than that


they should be dealt with at head office, as it were, somewhere in London.

Dextrostix

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make Dextrostix available through the National Health Service.

Dr. Vaughan: Arrangements already exist for consultants to authorise the free supply of Dextrostix through the hospital and specialist services, if they consider it necessary for diabetic patients' sugar levels to be monitored by blood tests rather than urine tests.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: I welcome what my hon. Friend said. May I press upon him the value of the product in terms of the new electronic gadget which is available for measuring the sugar in blood samples in the bodies of diabetics? Will he make this available as widely as possible to the NHS?

Dr. Vaughan: Yes, Sir. We are aware of this matter, and I shall bear in mind my hon. Friend's comments.

Mr. Beith: Is the Minister sure that consultants realise that in treating diabetics they have a similar freedom in the prescription of disposable syringes where a medical need can be shown? Will he bear in mind particluarly the problems of mothers of young children, to whom they have to give injections, and the greater advantage for them of having a disposable syringe?

Dr. Vaughan: Yes, Sir. These are important points, and I shall bear them in mind.

General Practitioners

Mr. Hal Miller: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has reached agreement with the British Medical Association on the terms of a new contract for general practitioners; and, in particular, if he will make a statement on the provision of casualty services by general practitioners.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Yes, Sir. The revised arrangements for the remuneration of general practitioners who treat patients on their own responsibility in hospitals cover both in-patient and casualty services.

Mr. Miller: Is my right hon. Friend aware that no casualty service has operated in Redditch for more than two years as a result of the dispute between the general practitioners and the area health authority over whether they should be classified as clinical assistants or placed in a different category? Does he realise that the matter is crucially dependent on the results of this contract?

Mr. Jenkin: I hope to write to health authorities during July to give them the full details of the new agreement and its implementation. It is a little early for me to say whether this will result immediately in an improvement in emergency and casualty facilities in my hon. Friend's constituency, but we certainly hope that it will.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)

Mr. Montgomery: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 26 June.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): In addition to duties in this House I have had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, including one with Lord Harlech. Later this afternoon I shall leave for the Tokyo economic summit.

Mr. Montgomery: Before my right hon. Friend leaves for Tokyo, can she find time today to read the report on school examination results, which was published yesterday? Does she not think that it would be better for all concerned if every local education authority published the separate examination results for each of the schools in its area?

The Prime Minister: I have indeed, glanced at the report to which my hon. Friend refers. I totally agree with him. I believe that local education authorities should publish the examination results as they refer to schools. I believe that parents are entitled to that information and that it most certainly should not be withheld.

Mr. Bidwell: At some time during her long journeys abroad, will the right hon. Lady reflect upon the fact that her Government are shaping up to deny women's rights in changing immigration rules to


prevent equality of the spouses—rules which were previously changed in 1974? Will she also reflect upon the fact that if she has a son-in-law in Australia who is non-patrial it is a long way to go to do a bit of baby-sitting?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows that the changes we propose to make in immigration rules were put before the electorate perfectly clearly, and that I answered all questions with great candour, regardless of their source. I believe that we have a mandate to go forward with the changes.

Sir Paul Bryan: No doubt my right hon. Friend will be spending some of today preparing for the summit conference in Tokyo. When she is there, will she constantly bear in mind that the Vietnamese refugee problem is a world problem and that it can be solved only by the very world leaders with whom she will be conferring?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for asking that question. The subject came up at the European Council and will certainly come up at the Tokyo summit. I think that there are two aspects. First, we should do everything we can to stop Vietnam so callously turning out those people. Secondly, there is the matter of trying to cope with the immense refugee problem that the Vietnamese have already created. We must condemn Vietnam with all the power at our command.

Mr. William Hamilton: Will the right hon. Lady take time today to read the newspaper reports about the capitulation of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food last week? Does she agree with the figures in those newspapers indicating that as a result of that capitulation the EEC farm budget will be increased by about £1,000 million and that our contribution to that will be roughly 20 per cent? Does she confirm those figures?

The Prime Minister: I inquired about the figures before I came to the House. May I make it quite clear that there is a freeze on milk prices for the first time since we joined the Community. There is an excellent butter subsidy and there is something for the farmers. The net effect of my right hon. Friend's efforts in Luxembourg last week is that we are now £30 million better off than we should

otherwise have been—for the simple reason that we get back more on the butter subsidy than we pay by way of increase in prices through the budget.

Mr. Emery: Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to the summary executions in Ghana today of six former leaders of that Commonwealth nation, three of whose lives were thought to be at risk, as expressed by an early-day motion signed by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House? Will she express her abhorrence of this action and see, perhaps with the Foreign Secretary, what action Britain, in conjunction with other African and Commonwealth nations, might take to try to impress on the present Ghana Government that unilateral action sweeping to one side—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] These are men's lives—sweeping to one side internationally accepted human rights and justice cannot be acceptable to the many friends of Ghana throughout the world?

The Prime Minister: We heard from Accra this morning that six further executions took place today, both of former Heads of State and of previous high officials in Ghana. As my hon. Friend knows, when a similar occasion occurred a few days ago we expressed our abhorrence. We do so again, in respnse to this terrible action. We made it perfectly clear that, if there were to be prosecutions, they should be in accordance with internationally accepted principles of justice. We are already in touch through our high commission in Ghana, we are in touch with the Nine, and we hope to get both America and Canada to join us in making similar strong representations to the Government of Ghana.

Mr. James Callaghan: With reference to that last answer, may I assure the right hon. Lady that she will have the full support of the Opposition in those representations and, in view of the special relationship which existed with Ghana and the assistance which this country has given to Ghana in recent years, add the hope that the present leaders will listen to what she has to say?
May I revert to the question about the agricultural policy? There is a great deal of either misunderstanding or something else about this. Why did the Minister of Agriculture depart from the


strong words that he had used in the House on 15 June, because it is clear from them that he was "in total agreement" with the proposals of the Commission for a general freeze? Why did he abandon that position? It was an impregnable position. Did the right hon. Lady advise him to do so because of some misunderstanding on the budgetary contributions at Strasbourg, or is it that he just was not tough enough to stand up to what was held over him?

The Prime Minister: There was no linkage between the negotiations going on in Luxembourg and those in Strasbourg. The right hon. Gentleman underestimates the excellence of the package which my right hon. Friend gained. No Labour Minister of Agriculture managed to secure a freeze on milk prices. The results on the butter subsidy which my right hon. Friend gained were excellent. The net effect of his work is that this country is £30 million better off than it would otherwise have been without it. I might add that those farmers who, without my right hon. Friend's efforts, might have had to pay a co-responsibility levy on milk are very pleased with the results of his work.

Oral Answers to Questions — SECRETARY OF STATE FOR ENERGY

Mr. Whitehead: asked the Prime Minister if she will dismiss the Secretary of State for Energy.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. Whitehead: Is the Prime Minister aware that many hon. Members have been deluged with correspondence from local authorities, transport undertakings and farmers about their failure to secure essential fuel supplies? As the Secretary of State for Energy appears to be embarked upon a one-man energy saving programme, cannot the right hon. Lady get him and the Minister of Transport together and impress upon them what the rest of the country knows already, namely, that proper allocation rather than pious exhortation is needed in this matter?

The Prime Minister: I am very much against having a great big bureaucratic scheme of allocation. Two or three years ago we experienced very considerable

shortages. When we had previous difficulty, there was then no system of allocation put into effect. If the hon. Member has particular difficulties in his constituency, perhaps he will get in touch with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy.

Mr. Neubert: Has my right hon. Friend seen the West German economic Minister's prediction today that there will be war within five years arising from the oil shortage? In view of the growing gravity of the petrol crisis, will my right hon. Friend urge upon her fellow statesmen at Tokyo a joint programme for reductions in petrol consumption throughout the Western world?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, at Strasbourg last week we tried to do all that we could to economise in our own countries on the use of oil and to try to bring our influence to bear on those who supply oil perhaps to increase the supply by a comparatively small amount, which is all that is needed. I agree totally with my hon. Friend that there is little point in our trying to depress the demand in Europe unless that is met with matching determination in the United States and Japan. We shall further that view at Tokyo later.

Mr. James Callaghan: In view of the growing critical nature of the oil position, when do the Government propose to abandon their policy of selling nearly £1 billion worth of BP shares?

The Prime Minister: I understood that the right hon. Gentleman's Government also sold BP shares.

Mr. Callaghan: But is the right hon. Lady aware that there is a controlling interest in BP at the moment of more than 51 per cent. and that the shares which were sold did not reduce it below that level? Will she please give us any rational explanation why further shares should be sold at this time?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave the explanation in his Budget Statement. It is not the ownership of a company which counts; it is the laws which relate to that company. BP is a perfectly ordinary commercial company. It operates commercially. We should be free to dispose of some of those


assets in accordance with what my right hon. and learned Friend said in his Budget Statement.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)

Mr. Viggers: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 26 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Montgomery).

Mr. Viggers: Has my right hon. Friend had a chance today to see the devastating analysis by the former Home Secretary of the reasons why the Labour Party was defeated in the last election? Has she noticed also that about half of the country's trade union members voted for the Conservative Party in the election? Does she think, as I do, that this means that union leaders should think twice before using their union positions for political ends and, similarly, that union members who voted Conservative should ensure that their union leaders know their views?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend, and apparently with the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), that a larger number of trade union members voted Conservative than ever before. I hope that we shall continue to gather strength from that source. They believe now that our policy best represents their ambitions for their own future and for their families, for a better standard of living and for better jobs.

Mr. Tapsell: When my right hon. Friend leaves in a few hours' time, with the good wishes of the British people, to attend this exceptionally important economic summit conference at Tokyo strengthened in the knowledge that sterling has increased in value against the Japanese yen by 25 per cent. over the past six months, and by the fact that she represents the only industrialised country which is almost self-sufficient in energy, will she take every opportunity to emphasise to the other world leaders that what really matters for the prosperity of everyone is the maintenance of the levels of world trade and that a key factor in that will be the establishment of con-

structive methods of re-cycling the surplus oil revenues?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend's question is especially pertinent in view of the OPEC meeting today because, if the price of oil goes up, there will be considerably increased revenues which ought to be re-cycled unless they are to have a very damaging effect on world trade and on the under-developed countries. I agree with my hon. Friend's analysis.

Mr. Mike Thomas: Is the Prime Minister aware that many hon. Members, like myself, have constituents who depend on the shipbuilding and heavy engineering industries, for neither of which she holds out any promise? These industries are often located in areas of high unemployment. Will she give some information to the House on the progress of the shipbuilding intervention fund? What is to happen to the shipbuilding industry and the jobs within it? What progress has been made on the AGR nuclear orders for the power plant industry? What will happen to those people for whom she professes to care—those who work creatively in industry?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the shipbuilding plan is under review. He will also be aware that there is surplus capacity in this country, as well as in others, and that reducing that surplus capacity will be a painful process. It is not a process that we wish to undergo but one which the situation means we shall have to undergo. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am afraid that nationalisation does not prevent a reduction of jobs. This must be looked at realistically. We are interested in trying to get new, "tomorrow's jobs", and doing everything to encourage new industries, new small businesses and expansion of existing industries.

Mr. Frank Allaun: If the Government increase the cost of living by introducing VAT, cutting public spending and causing unemployment, is it not both an industrial and a political question? Are not the trade unions entitled to reply with all their force, backed all the way by the Labour Party in the House?

The Prime Minister: As one of my hon. Friends said a few moments ago, many trade union members have indicated their support for the Government


and our policies, which will get more money into the private sector where the new jobs will be truly created.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is becoming increasingly difficult to reach the Prime Minister at Question Time. On the Order Paper today there were 35 questions to the right hon. Lady. A number of hon. Members have withdrawn their questions, for obvious reasons. If an important facility and right for Back-Bench Members to be able to question the Prime Minister of the day is not working, I should like to ask whether this matter can be looked at again. Either we should have alternative arrangements, or the right hon. Lady should devote more time to answering questions in the House.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman, who was in a previous Parliament, will have noticed that there is a change in the type of question. We now Lave what I call the open question. The House insists on having that open question. The number of hon. Members who are called to question the Prime Minister is as great as ever.

Mr. Winnick: Further to that point of order—

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is no point in our discussing that matter now.

Mr. Skinner: On a point or order, Mr. Speaker. In the House last Friday the Minister of Agriculture made a statement, arising out of questions from both sides, that there would be a cut of 6p a pound in butter prices. We now read in the newspapers that this will not be the case. The Prime Minister has not been able to tell us that she will give a guarantee of a 6p cut in butter prices. Can you arrange, Mr. Speaker, for another statement to be made by the Minister of Agriculture to clear up this important matter?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House knows that that is not my business.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY COUNCIL (STRASBOURG MEETING)

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): With permission, Mr. Speaker I should like to make a statement on the European Council Meeting at Strasbourg. With my noble Friend, the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary I attended the European Council in Strasbourg at the end of last week. Among the matters we discussed were, first, contributions to the Community budget. I made our dissatisfaction with the results of the present system very plain. The European Council called for action by the Commission to assess the facts about how the budget transfers are likely to affect each member State in 1979 and 1980 and whether and how the 1975 financial mechanism, intended to reduce our contribution, will work. That report will go first to the Finance Council of Ministers, who will have the opportunity to put forward practical ideas to solve the problem.
Taking those views into account, the Commission has been asked to formulate proposals in time for decisions to be taken at the next meeting of the European Council in November, in Dublin. At last, therefore, we have an agreement to tackle the inequitably high contribution that Britain at present makes to the European budget. The time for decisions will be at the next Council.
Secondly on energy and the oil shortage, we agreed to reinforce our efforts to reduce consumption of oil and to achieve the objectives that the Community has set itself. We also emphasised the part that alternative sources of energy must play, nuclear power and coal in particular.
We recognised the need for consumer and producer countries to work together to reduce demand and increase supply and made clear the readiness of the Community and member States to establish contacts with producer countries to that end. We had in mind the Tokyo economic summit meeting this week and that by showing that the Community was ready to shoulder its own responsibilities, we should be in a good position to call on other industrialised countries to make comparable efforts to reduce oil consumption and imports. We agreed that higher


oil prices will adversely affect the outlook for growth, though prices will only steady if demand and supply balance.
Thirdly, the Council reviewed the early operations of the European monetary system. I also told it of the Government's intention, about which the House has already been informed, to deposit part of our reserves against ECUs.
Fourthly, the Council was anxious to help refugees from Vietnam and supported the proposals for an international conference.
Finally, we noted with satisfaction the first direct elections to the European Assembly and welcome the intention of the Irish Prime Minister to represent the Council at the inaugural meeting of the new Assembly on 18 July.

Mr. James Callaghan: The House will hope that the meeting at Tokyo will be able to assist the discussion on the refugees from Vietnam in view of the horrific figures now being quoted about the number, for example, that Hong Kong may be required to take because its policies are perhaps more humanitarian than those of some surrounding countries. I hope that progress will be made on that matter.
The right hon. Lady referred to the inequitably high contribution to the Community budget. Does she mean the net contribution? This is a matter not only of the resources that we put into the Community but the receipts that we get. Does the study to which the right hon. Lady referred include a study of the receipts that we might be expected to get as well as the contributions that we make? If we cannot make progress on that matter, will she consider suggesting that we should put a ceiling on our contribution, as a concrete request to be made to the Commission before the budget?
The right hon. Lady will have the support of the whole House in continuing the work that we began. It is fair to say that we took the shine off the ball and that it is now for her to hit the runs. I believe that that will be possible. I only hope that the right hon. Lady is not too sanguine when she says that at last we have agreement on this matter.
Finally, we welcome the dialogue that is due to take place on the energy and coal shortage. We must proceed with

nuclear energy, but what steps are being taken to ensure that proper safety measures are put into operation? If we are to increase the production of coal, why is there a report in the newspapers this morning that the Secretary of State for Energy has agreed only up to 1982–83 the "Plan for Coal", which runs up to 1985? It is a provisional endorsement. Is not that a halfhearted way of approaching a critical situation? I press the right hon. Lady to see that the Secretary of State for Energy gives full consent to the "Plan for Coal" up to 1985. When can we expect a proper conservation plan from the Government, in view of the statements that have been made at Strasbourg?
Finally, the Government appear to have had welcome second thoughts about the European monetary system. When I came back from Paris and the scheme was established the right hon. Lady said that it was a sad day for Europe that we had not joined that system. I do not see much enthusiasm for it yet by the right hon. Lady. I welcome her second thoughts, but what is the Government's policy?
Finally,—

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The right hon. Gentleman has already had two "finallys".

Mr. Callaghan: Then this is my third "finally", and after it I shall sit down. These are pertinent questions.
Finally, I wish to question the Prime Minister about co-ordinating budgetary policies. The right hon. Lady has agreed to co-ordinate budgetary policies to produce a satisfactory level of growth. When can we expect the summer Budget?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the Leader of the Opposition for his comments about refugees from Vietnam. We hope that there will soon be an international conference. That is the only way to try to sort out the vast numbers involved. The right hon. Gentleman asked about contributions to the budget. Our partners were not all aware that Britain had, to us, an unanswerable case.

Mr. Callaghan: They were.

The Prime Minister: I am sorry, but they were not. Nor, indeed, did they accept that Britain's contribution to the budget was inequitably high. One of our


first problems was to convince them of that.
The right hon. Gentleman asked what type of contributions we were dealing with. They were net contributions, although there is some argument about how the monetary compensatory amounts are dealt with—whether they are dealt with on behalf of the exporting country or the importing country. Of course, the net contributions are affected by the difference between the gross contributions and receipts. That is an important part of trying to assess the budget in future years.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked about energy and coal shortages. He is well aware that we have an excellent nuclear inspectorate in Britain. Our designs have a high regard for the safety of nuclear equipment, and that is right.
I believe that it is hoped to produce about 108 million tonnes of coal this year. I remember that when I first dealt with the fuel portfolio when in opposition we were producing much more. We want as much coal produced as possible. I hope that one day we shall be able to produce much more than 108 million tonnes per annum.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the European monetary system. We have swapped some of our reserves, but we shall not make a final decision for some time. We said that we would be in a position to make some preliminary observations when this matter was dealt with again in September. I believe that it is right to review the whole position now, in the light of existing circumstances, before we reach a final decision.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Will my right hon. Friend undertake to keep the House informed of the progress in the Government's thinking on EMS before a final decision is taken by the Cabinet? Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that there is now a common European policy for the production as well as the conservation of energy? Will Europe be able to speak with one voice not only in Tokyo but to OPEC? Is the Prime Minister aware that there is a wide welcome in Europe, as there is in Britain, for the refreshing change in style and manner in which she has approached the European Community?

The Prime Minister: I shall endeavour to meet my hon. Friend's point about the EMS. The next meeting is in September when, unless anything unusual occurs, the House will not be sitting.
I am not in a position to say that we have one policy for Europe for the production of energy. Indeed, we certainly do not have a single policy. In addition to the oil that we have, there must be more concerted action on agreeing about the future of nuclear energy.
Most of us agree that we shall not have enough power unless we go nuclear on a larger scale than at present. We must make clear that we are all in favour of safe nuclear production and that we shall take all necessary steps to that end. I hope that we shall be able to speak with one voice in Tokyo and that it will be a powerful voice in relation to fuel and energy.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Is there any substance in the reports that the Government will attempt to disguise the size of the contribution to the EEC budget by diverting a substantial part of it to food prices? Is the Prime Minister aware that a fiddle of that kind will be even more offensive and unacceptable than the present direct contribution?

The Prime Minister: That is the first time that I have heard that report. I wholly reject it.

Mr. Churchill: Did my right hon. Friend have an opportunity of discussing with any of her colleagues the grave implications for the defence of Europe of article 12 of SALT, which appears effectively to rule out any future Nassau-type agreement or any transfer of strategic technology from the United States to our NATO Allies? Will she consider taking that matter up urgently with President Carter when she meets him in Tokyo this week?

The Prime Minister: We did not discuss defence in Strasbourg. As my hon. Friend knows, defence comes under NATO and is not a matter for the Community. I have answered questions before on SALT and made it clear that we believe that we shall be able to obtain the technology that we need for updating our own nuclear deterrent and that SALT does not affect that in any way.

Mr. Jay: What parliamentary or legal authority have the Government for transferring part of the gold and dollar reserves to the European monetary co-operation fund? Full legislation in the House was needed for a similar transfer to the IMF in 1945. Has any deposit yet been made?

The Prime Minister: I cannot say whether any deposit has yet been made, but I do not believe that we need special legislative authority to make it.

Mr. Skeet: Does the Prime Minister agree that the reference to coal for power stations means not more British coal but more coal from South Africa, Australia and Poland? How can it be said that a subsidy of £6·35 a tonne will make a viable export trade for the United Kingdom?

The Prime Minister: Obviously we want more coal from our own production. There are contracts with other countries for importing coal and some is being imported, but not much. We should not need to import it if we could use more of our own.

Mr. Benn: Has the Prime Minister agreed that the international oil companies can deplete the North Sea more rapidly to meet the Common Market need for oil? Following the French pattern, has the Prime Minister in mind to build an American reactor of the kind involved in the Harrisburg accident? Does she intend to lift all restrictions on the import of coal? Is she aware that any one of those three policy changes would have to be fully debated in the House, because of their importance?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Member asked about production from the North Sea. As he knows, that would mean making alterations to the flaring regulations, among other things. We have not made a decision to use American nuclear reactors, especially the PWR. The decision is still open. No decision has yet been made. We have not made an open commitment to import unlimited quantities of coal.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend indicate what political and economic action the European Community will take against Vietnam and its backer, the Soviet Union, to prevent them from taking their present brutal and in-

human action? Since my right hon. Friend attended the meeting with our noble Friend the Foreign Secretary, why was there no discussion about Rhodesia? Will she recognise Bishop Muzorewa and his Government at an early date in order to ensure that tribal conflict does not bring chaos and disorder to that country?

The Prime Minister: We did not discuss economic action against Vietnam, although a number of countries made the point that the Community supplies subsidies for food to Vietnam and suggested that they should be switched to supplying food for the Vietnamese refugees.
We did not discuss Rhodesia in formal session. There were one or two informal meetings and the subject was raised there. I saw Lord Harlech today, and he will be going to Salisbury early next week. Bishop Muzorewa will then travel to the United States. He has asked to see me on the way back and I shall, of course, see him. My hon. Friend will see, therefore, that a good deal of activity is under way.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I appeal to the House for short questions? We must be fair to the Welsh business that is to follow, which is very restricted. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear.") Well, the House should get its priorities right.

Mr. Russell Johnston: How can the Prime Minister have the gall to express satisfaction with the result of the direct elections? Is it not gratuitously arrogant to dismiss the fact that the 13 per cent. of the British electorate who voted Liberal have no representation because of a system that is unique in the Community? Surely the result can give no satisfaction to any democrat.

The Prime Minister: I certainly wish that more people had voted in the first direct elections to the European Parliament. However, the Liberal Party did not do particularly well in those areas where it could have won.

Mr. John H. Osborn: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the problem in the Community is to promote the use of coal-fired power stations? Will she explain what progress has been made in implementing proposals for trade in coal, and coal stocks, and in creating coal-fired


power stations, an idea that was supported by the Parliament and the Commission but got stuck in the Council of Ministers?

The Prime Minister: I think that that subject was not raised at the Council. As my hon. Friend knows, some of us are already switching some of the burn from oil to coal and helping to save oil in that way. I think that most of us consider that the real future lies in building more nuclear power stations, and it is to that that we must give our attention.

Mr. Dalyell: The Prime Minister used the phrase "reinforcing efforts to reduce the consumption of oil". What practical suggestions were put forward?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Secretary of State for Energy has made statements about reducing the use of power in the public sector. Each and every country can do that. It does not reduce consumption by a great deal, but every marginal reduction helps in the current situation. Further, prices have gone up, and that of itself depresses demand. Fortunately, our prices for petrol are nothing like so high as those in Europe.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: Since the lead time for nuclear reactors is about a decade from mine to production, and since the Western world is likely to deplete its resources of uranium even more dramatically than it depletes its oil resources unless we build fast breeder reactors, was this issue considered by my right hon. Friend and her colleagues at the summit? If it was not, how soon will it be?

The Prime Minister: The answer in respect of the fast breeder reactor is "No". The French are further ahead with their fast breeder reactor—the Phoenix—but we are committed to holding a public inquiry before any decision is made to go ahead with a fast breeder reactor.

Mr. Douglas: Will the right hon. Lady specifically consider the regulation of the Rotterdam spot, or free, market? Does she believe in the French proposal for a ceiling on dealings there? Will she tell the House how her Government propose to enter into price-fixing in respect of the Rotterdam market?

The Prime Minister: The main outflow of crude oil that is not sold at the official price is not through the Rotterdam spot market. The idea that all of the oil that is being sold at a very high price goes through the Rotterdam spot market is false. Only a tiny amount goes through that channel. The real problem arises because some producer countries are selling at prices that broke free from the base price, which is of Saudi Arabian marker crude. That is the source of the high prices of oil. I do not believe that those prices are affected by the prices of crude on the Rotterdam spot market. The bigger Rotterdam spot market is on product, but that is small compared with the volumes of crude that have to be sold the world over.

Mr. Adley: No one underestimates the urgency needed to agree a policy on oil conservation in Europe or in the rest of the world. Is my right hon. Friend aware that there has been another tanker disaster off the South Coast of England, and that there remains in this House and in the country generally continuing concern about the problem of oil pollution? Is she further aware that the Community has made interesting and progressive proposals for Community-wide measures to deal with the problem, including proposals to make the oil owners partly responsible for what happens? Will she, with her Cabinet colleagues, take an opportunity to encourage the Community to pursue this policy, and will our Government take notice of what the Community is saying?

The Prime Minister: We are all anxious to deal with this matter, and I shall certainly look into it to see whether any further steps need to be taken by this country, either on our own or in conjunction with our partners.

Mr. Skinner: Will the Prime Minister confirm that what is really happening on the Rotterdam spot market in relation to oil is the operation of free enterprise? I was always under the impression that she, perhaps more than most of the Tory Benches, fully supported that. Does she understand that the real problem with coal in this country is how to sell what we already have? It is a matter not so much of producing more coal but of getting rid of it. Is the right hon. Lady aware that large


stocks are still available in this country, and will she therefore, on the basis of all that, ensure that there is no further importation of coal?

The Prime Minister: The Rotterdam spot market is a symptom of the imbalance between demand and supply. It works in the same way as any other spot market. When there is a surplus, prices are very low indeed. When there is a scarcity, prices are high. Some countries that have no other way of getting oil would rather pay higher prices than have more people unemployed.
We could certainly do with a good deal more coal production in this country, particularly since our stocks have been depleted by the cold weather last winter. We could do with a good deal more coal, and we shall be grateful for anythig that the hon. Gentleman can do to encourage that.

Mr. Gummer: Will my right hon. Friend confirm the widespread impression that the Community is more likely to come to terms with Britain's problems both on energy and on the Community budget now that it is dealing with a Government who support Europe instead of opposing it?

The Prime Minister: What my hon. Friend says is true. Certainly the Council was very welcoming to the new member.

Mr. Heffer: Since the Prime Minister, like myself, does not agree with proportional representation, and since less than one-third of the people of this country voted in the European elections, will the right hon. Lady tell us what she told her colleagues in Europe? How did she explain that over two-thirds of the British people turned their backs on the Euro-elections, showing that they were not happy about the elections, and therefore about the Common Market?

The Prime Minister: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's interpretation of the low turnout. We have had a surfeit of electionitis in this country recently, and I think that it was due to the fact that people had been to the polls on a number of occasions that they did not turn out in such large numbers as they otherwise would have done.

Mr. Rost: As security of energy supplies must be second in importance only

to the need for defence, is my right hon. Friend satisfied that simply agreeing to freeze oil imports into Europe will help towards self-sufficiency in the long term and in preparation for the time when the oil will not be available to import?

The Prime Minister: There are, quite clearly, problems at two levels—the immediate and the long-term, which is the time that it takes to build the nuclear power stations to replace the oil and fossil fuels as an alternative source of power. I agree with the underlying premise of my hon. Friend. Though we are talking a great deal about replacing power supplies in the longer term by nuclear power, perhaps not enough is being done to give information to our people and to assure them about the safety of nuclear fuel. We must take all possible steps to do that.

Mr. English: Does the right hon. Lady recollect that in the previous Parliament a Committee of this House produced an interim report on the EMS and Britain's relationship to it? Does she agree that, to be effective, the reallocation of reserves that she has announced may not need an Act of Parliament, but will probably need a statutory instrument to be laid before the House? Will she promise that any such change, or decision, will be placed before the Treasury and Civil Service Committee of this House?

The Prime Minister: This is a technicality. What we have done is only a swap. I doubt whether that needs regulations. It is a swap, that is all, and I do not think that we need legislation for that. With regard to the EMS itself, we shall not take a decision until we are in a position to do so.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call two more hon. Members.

Mr. Shore: The Prime Minister spoke earlier about the timing of the possible main EMS decision in September. Will she think about this again, because it really would be intolerable, given the importance of the issue, if such a decision were made at a Council of Ministers meeting at a time when the House had no opportunity to debate it and was, in fact, in recess.

The Prime Minister: What I said about September was that we would be in a position then to make our first assessment. I did not say that we would be in a position then to decide whether we would join. We shall be in a position then to make our first assessment. I am determined that we shall not hurry this matter, and I shall take full account of what the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) said.

Mr. Leighton: Has the Prime Minister had the opportunity to see the distinguished article by Lombard, on page 16 of today's Financial Times, which explains that we are already making a net contribution to the Community, across the exchanges, of over £1 billion? I think that that is worth 3p off the standard rate of income tax.

The Prime Minister: I have not seen the article. I should have thought that the £1 billion referred to the adjustment at the end of the transition period, or possibly to next year. The hon. Gentleman is reinforcing the demands that I have made that this matter be considered. After all, the Council of Ministers agreed to consider it and to propose solutions in time for decision in Dublin in November.

WALES ACT 1978 (REPEAL)

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I call the Secretary of State for Wales, I ought to tell the House that I shall select the amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones). If it is desired that there be two Divisions, as is quite possible, it will be impossible if it is not taken before 6.30 p.m. I thought that I had better warn hon. Members.

4.6 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Edwards): I beg to move,
That the draft Wales Act 1978 (Repeal) Order 1979, which was laid before this House on 22 March 1979 in the last Parliament, be approved.
I suggest that it will be for the convenience of the House to debate at the same time the remaining two motions. The first is as follows:

That

(1) A Select committee shall be appointed, to be called the Committee on Welsh Affairs, to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of the Welsh Office and associated public bodies; and the committee shall consist of a maximum of eleven members, of whom the quorum shall be three.
(2) The Committee shall have power—

(a) to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, and to report from time to time; and
(b) to appoint persons with technical knowledge either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the committee's order of reference.

(3) Unless the House otherwise orders, all Members nominated to the committee appointed under this Order shall continue to be members of the committee for the remainder of the Parliament.

That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.

The second is as follows:

That no Motion shall be made for the nomination of Members to serve on the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, or for their discharge, unless;

(a) notice of the Motion has been given at least two sitting days previously, and
(b) the Motion is made on behalf of the Committee of Selection by the Chairman or by another Member of that Committee.

Mr. Speaker: Does the House agree? Very well, that is agreed.

Mr. Edwards: I am much obliged, Mr. Speaker. We have before us today three motions. The first is to approve the draft Order in Council repealing the Wales Act, the second is to establish a Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, and the third is to enable the Committee of Selection to nominate the members, which was the procedure recommended by the Select Committee on Procedure.
On the first motion, I hope that the House will agree that there is very little to say. Certainly I intend to say very little about it. Section 80 of the Wales Act 1978 lays down that if it appears to the Secretary of State that less than 40 per cent. of the persons entitled to vote in the referendum voted "Yes" or that a majority of the answers given were "No" he shall lay before Parliament the draft of an Order in Council for the repeal of the Act. If the draft is approved by resolution the order may be made. If, therefore, we approve this motion today we are approving repeal of the Act.
Of the 40 per cent. requirement, and of the calculation of those entitled to vote, the facts speak for themselves. There is no need to take that provision into account. Of the valid votes cast, only 243,048 were in favour of putting the Act into effect, while 956,330 were against—a majority of nearly 4 to 1. Every county in Wales voted heavily against. The verdict of the Welsh people on the Wales Act was thus absolutely clear. Their rejection cannot be questioned.
In accordance with the provisions of the Wales Act, my predecessor, the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris), laid the draft repeal order on 22 March. I have little doubt that, had the previous Government remained in office, they would have moved the approval of the draft themselves.
In considering the draft, I do not think we should spend too much time on what must now be clearly seen by everyone as the mistakes of the last five years. Again and again we warned the previous Government that the proposals and the Bill they were then putting forward were fundamentally and hopelessly flawed. The flaws showed through in almost every part of the Bill. It was, in our judgment, a recipe for conflict and division, for waste and duplication.
The debate on the Bill was never conducted completely on party lines. Many hon. Members on the then Government Benches saw the flaws and the defects as clearly as we did and helped to expose them more and more fully as the debate on the Floor of the House proceeded.
We warned the previous Government, too, that their proposals were not wanted in Wales. We were right. The electorate overwhelmingly endorsed the view that we had taken. There is no point in further delay, and I hope the House will agree that we should move swiftly to give effect to the view expressed by the people of Wales on 1 March.
None the less, we on the Government Benches have for long recognised the need for better scrutiny of the activities of the Welsh Office and nominated bodies in Wales. I therefore turn to the second motion before us. This is to establish a Select Committee on Welsh Affairs. Throughout the referendum campaign and the recent general election campaign my party advocated, as an alternative to the proposals in the Wales Act, an approach based on increased parliamentary scrutiny of the affairs of the Principality.
Specifically, we advocated the establishment of a Select Committee, which would be able to meet in Wales, to examine the work not only of the Welsh Office but of other related bodies in Wales. As we undertook to do in our manifesto, we are now bringing this proposal before the House.
The proposals contained in the second motion follow closely those approved by the House yesterday for 12 departmentally related Select Committees. If it is carried, action can be undertaken quickly to set up the Committee on Welsh Affairs. As a result of the further motion which was put down last night, the Committee of Selection would propose names for the new Committee. This is as the Procedure Committee recommended.
The Welsh Committee would be able to look at the full range of my responsibilities. But an additional, and very important, element in its work would be to improve the scrutiny of nominated bodies operating in Wales. It would therefore be able to examine the activities of public bodies operating within the area of my responsibilities, making these bodies


more directly accountable to elected representatives.
The test in every case will be whether there is a significant degree of ministerial responsibility for the body concerned. I am sure the Committee will be able to settle that issue, in consultation with me, quite easily. I am sure that is the way the issue ought to be settled.

Mr. Michael English: So far, nobody seems to have mentioned an obvious difficulty about a Select Committee relating to a part of the United Kingdom, namely, its composition in relation to the United Kingdom as a whole. I see that some of my hon. Friends wish to extend it so that, presumably, it will contain every Welsh Member of Parliament, but it should contain some English, Scottish and Northern Ireland Members if it is to be at all representative of the House.

Mr. Edwards: I agree with the hon. Gentleman on one point. It is a Committee of the House of Commons. It is not specifically a Committee of a particular group. But I should have thought that the view of the House—I shall welcome its opinion on this matter—would probably be that the membership should come from Welsh Members, who are particularly concerned with Welsh affairs. But that will be a matter for the Committee of Selection to decide under the procedure that we have laid down.

Mr. Alan Williams: If I understood the Secretary of State correctly, he said that the quangos would be subject to the Committee if there were a significant degree of ministerial control. The paradox for us here is that the less ministerial control there is, the more important it becomes that such bodies should be subject to the scrutiny of the Committee. How will the Secretary of State deal with that?

Mr. Edwards: I think that it is clear that the basis on which the new Select Committees are being set up, on the recommendations made by the Select Committee on Procedure, is that they should essentially be departmental Committees dealing with areas of responsibility connected with government. If I may say so, although I fully understand the right hon. Gentleman's point, I do not think that

this will in reality lead to difficulty. I should have thought that the nominated bodies with which he is concerned, the ones which operate in Wales, are responsible, at least to some degree, to the Secretary of State for Wales. I hope that we can see how this works out in practice. I shall certainly co-operate in every way possible to see that all the bodies about which there is concern in Wales can be looked at by the Select Committee in a reasonable manner.

Mr. Alan Williams: Surely, if the organisation is appointed by the Secretary of State, it is essential, to meet his objective that there be some scrutiny by him, and the less scrutiny there is—we recognise that he and his hon. Friends cannot be minute in their investigations—the more important it becomes that these bodies should be subject to the scrutiny of the Committee.

Mr. Edwards: I think that we shall have to look at this, and perhaps we can have further discussions about it, but I should have thought that where the Secretary of State for Wales has an important measure of responsibility for appointing the members of these bodies, that represents a degree of ministerial responsibility. I should hesitate to try to publish, agree and pass through the House a list of nominated bodies that should be subject to the scrutiny of the Committee. Indeed, I think that that might handicap the Committee rather than help it. But I shall be anxious to co-operate with the Committee in every way possible to enable it to examine those public bodies in Wales which the Committee wishes to examine.
I think that we must look at this in the light of experience. There will be bodies operating at least partly in Wales which will have more direct responsibility to other Departments and which will probably come under the scrutiny of other departmental Select Committees rather than the Welsh Select Committee. But again I assure the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) and the House that we shall be anxious to co-operate in every way possible with the Select Committee.

Mr. Leo Abse: Although the purpose of the Select Committee is to govern the Executive, not that the Executive should tell the Select Committee


what to do, are we to understand from what has been said that the Secretary of State intends to place restrictions upon the activities of the Select Committee? For example, may we have an assurance that there will be no difficulty in the Select Committee calling before it BBC Wales and the Independent Television Authority, or is the right hon. Gentleman saying that these must be exempt since they do not fall directly into the category that he has enunciated?

Mr. Edwards: I think that in the case of those two bodies the prime responsibility would lie with the Select Committee dealing with Home Office affairs, because there is ministerial responsibility in the Home Office in respect of those organisations. I think that it would be in line with the advice given by the Select Committee on Procedure that we should operate in that way.

Mr. English: It may help the right hon. Gentleman if he recalls the relevant portion of the report of the Procedure Committee that was discussed at length last night. I think that we all agreed that no real restriction can be placed upon the right of any of the Select Committees to call before it any persons or corporations germane to its current inquiries provided that they are, as it were, the main or lead subject of its inquiry.

Mr. Edwards: The hon. Gentleman speaks with great experience, and he has been heavily involved in the discussions which have gone on. I am sure that the House will value the comment that he has just made.

Sir Raymond Gower: I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. Friend yet further, but this is a matter of some significance. The hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) raised an important question regarding the membership of such a Select Committee including Members of Parliament from throughout the United Kingdom. Perhaps my right hon. Friend could deal with that, since the motive force behind the setting up of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs goes beyond the generality of the Select Committees to which the hon. Gentleman refers, in that it is designed particularly to deal with the affairs of the Principality.

Mr. Edwards: With respect to my hon. Friend, I think that the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) had a point when he said that the Select Committee was responsible to the House as a whole. However, having said that, I still have in mind that we are setting up departmental Select Committees with a broad United Kingdom remit, and I think that it would probably be the view of the House that on matters expressly concerned with Wales the sensible way to proceed would be to have a Committee consisting of Welsh Members. But at the end of the day this is a matter for the House of Commons to decide, and specifically for the Committee of Selection.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Will the Secretary of State explain to me, a simple Englishman, why we need a Select Committee at the same time as we need the Welsh Grand Committee? What will be the relationship between the two, what will be the function of the one as against the other, and so on? I confess to being somewhat confused about why we need the Select Committee when we have the Welsh Grand Committee.

Mr. Edwards: With great respect, there is a totally different function. On the one hand, the Welsh Grand Committee simply has the power to debate an issue, to have a relatively short and general debate. The Select Committee, on the other hand, will have all the powers of a Select Committee to call Ministers and witnesses before it, to call for papers, to carry out the detailed examination which a Select Committee can carry out and to issue a report which, in its turn, can be debated by the House. Moreover, I see no reason why the reports of the Welsh Select Committee should not also be debated by the Grand Committee if the Grand Committee wished to do so.
Thus, on the one hand, one has an investigative and probing Committee, a Committee able to work in detail and to prepare a report. On the other hand, one has a broad debating Committee with far less opportunity to probe and examine the work of government in detail. There is a clear-cut distinction, which I am sure the House understands. It is really the distinction between a Select Committee and this House of Commons operating as a House. Here, we can only debate in


general, and we appoint Select Committees to probe in more detail.
I have given way a good deal, and I wish now to press onto other aspects of these matters, first saying a little about powers. The question of powers was discussed extensively yesterday and I do not want to repeat all that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House then said. It seems agreed that generally, on the basis of past experience, the conventions governing co-operation between Select Committees, Government Departments and public bodies operate satisfactorily. I do not believe that a case for change has been made out.
My right hon. Friend yesterday gave an assurance—indeed, assurances—of the Government's willingness to co-operate, and I repeat those assurances now in relation to the Welsh Committee. The House will not find me or my Department raising unnecessary difficulties. We shall do all that we can to help the new Committee.
I turn now to the question of numbers. We propose a Committee of 11. That is in line with the largest of the departmental Select Committees established yesterday. The Select Committee on Procedure recommended a norm of about 10 for the membership of these Committees and expressed the belief that the Committees should be small enough to operate as single cohesive investigative units. I agree with the Committee's views and consider that if Committees of this size are right for a major Department such as the Treasury, with all its varied responsibilities, there is no reason why one of that size should not be right for Wales.
The Opposition have put down an amendment proposing a Committee of 36, presumably on the ground that all Welsh Members should be able to serve. It must be appreciated—appreciated, I suppose, by none more than by you, Mr. Speaker—that some Welsh Members, due to the offices which they hold, are not eligible to serve, so presumably the amendment would involve the attendance of English Members. To that extent I suppose that it might be welcomed by the hon. Member for Nottingham, West. However, I am not sure whether that is

what the amendment's sponsors have in mind. No doubt some Welsh Members will not wish to serve because of their other commitments.
I am afraid that I cannot accept the amendment. Quite apart from the arguments that I have already advanced about the Select Committee's recommendation on the size of an effective committee, I must point out that the 12 major Select Committees established yesterday will require a membership of 120. The remaining Select Committees, other than Wales, and any committee that may be established for Scotland, will require more than 60 more, so that we are in a situation where approximately 200 hon. Members will be engaged in Select Committees. And I believe that a large Select Committee of the kind proposed by the Opposition would place a considerable strain on hon. Members, particularly those Welsh Members—and there will be many—who wish to serve on the departmental Select Committees established yesterday or on other continuing Select Committees.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, West was right to suggest that the House as a whole will be interested in the work of the Welsh Select Committee. However, there is no doubt that there will be many Welsh Members who will not take kindly to the idea that they should concern themselves only with Welsh affairs and should not be closely involved and members of the other Select Committees that will be established.
Yesterday the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) referred to the danger that the Committees would be thinly attended. It would be no service to the House, or to Wales, to establish a Committee of a sort which many Members would find difficult to attend regularly. I must say to the right hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones) that I do not consider the proposition contained in his amendment to be entirely reasonable. We have put forward a scheme that is in line with the recommendation of the Procedure Committee and in line with the decision taken by the House yesterday. We are taking a major new initiative. The right way to do that is to make a start that is in line with the practice of the House generally and to see how we get on. We can always make modifications later in the light of experience.
I turn now to some general points about the consequences of our passing the first motion on the Order Paper, and our reasons for proposing the others. As I have said, our main thrust, following rejection of the Wales Act, should lie in improved parliamentary scrutiny of the affairs of Wales. We have already had, at the very earliest opportunity, a short Welsh affairs debate. We have undertaken to hold more frequent meetings of the Welsh Grand Committee, with some of the debates to be used to discuss the reports of the nominated bodies. We intend to hold a general debate on the Welsh economy in the Grand Committee in two weeks' time, followed before we rise for the Summer Recess by a debate on the Price Commission report on the Welsh water authority. I believe that the fact that we are proposing this programme is an earnest of our good intentions. With two debates on the floor, two debates in the Welsh Grand Committee and two lots of Welsh questions inside two months, I do not think it can be argued that we are neglecting the affairs of the Principality in terms of parliamentary time.
In addition, the new proposed Select Committee, I believe, offers the way forward for a major advance in the public scrutiny of Welsh government. I am sure that the Select Committee has an important role to play.
During the Welsh affairs debate I said that I was considering other aspects of the problem, and in particular the relationship of local and central Government. I want to give local government a much freer hand. I want to disengage from detailed supervision whenever that is possible and to cut down on the number of circulars. I want responsibility to lie at the lowest level possible.
At the same time, I am anxious to ascertain whether we can improve on the consultative processes that now exist. I intend to discuss this with the local authorities. I particularly want to know whether they feel that the existing consultative council on local government finance provides the best forum for general consultation and whether its role can in any way be widened and improved.

Mr. Denzil Davies: What action is the right hon. Gentleman taking to reduce the number of quangos in

Wales? Does he recall that that was part of the Conservative Party's campaign before the general election? Is he proposing a reduction in the number of quangos?

Mr. Edwards: One often finds, on giving way to an intervention, that one was about to move on to the matter raised by the intervenor. I am in that position.
We shall consider whether all the nominated bodies are required. That exercise is taking place urgently. We shall be making announcements. There are a number of bodies that we could well do without. I shall be making statements on that matter as soon as possible.
The exposure of the nominated bodies to the Select Committee will be a valuable discipline for them. I have one other immediate proposal to make, and that is that they should expose themselves more to public examination. The Welsh arts council has already made experiments in this direction and I think that these have been welcomed. I believe that some of the others might follow that example. I propose asking the chairmen of some of the leading nominated bodies in Wales, such as the Welsh water authority, the Welsh Development Agency, the Development Board for Rural Wales, and the Wales tourist board, to conduct an experiment and to hold public meetings to present their annual reports.
It may be that such meetings will arouse little interest or, alternatively, that they will attract a number of cranks. I believe that that problem can be partly overcome by inviting to the meeting the representatives of local authorities and organisations with a particular interest, though their presence would not exclude the general public. I do not think that bodies with public responsibility should be afraid to face the public, any more than public companies can avoid facing their shareholders. I believe that it will be an interesting experiment in public participation and will help to make these organisations less remote from those they serve. As politicians, we frequently place ourselves in a position to be questioned in detail about our activities. I see no reason why those who administer these important organisations in Wales should be afraid to face similar examination.
The debate will give the opportunity for right hon. and hon. Members to put


forward other suggestions for improving government in Wales in the light of the decision of the Welsh people not to proceed with the Wales Act. My proposal is that we should approve the draft order for repeal—

Mr. Ioan Evans: During the discussions that were held when we were considering possible alternatives if the people of Wales did not want an Assembly, it was argued that there should be greater democratic accountability. It was contended that there was a need for those on nominated bodies to be more accountable. Has the right hon. Gentleman given consideration to the suggestion that Members of Parliament and representatives of districts and counties should be brought together to determine who serves on the nominated bodies? If that were done, they would be more democratically accountable than those who serve under the present system which depends on which Government are in office and the determination of patronage.

Mr. Roy Hughes: rose—

Mr. Edwards: I can answer only one question at a time. I shall give way to the hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Hughes) before I conclude. I was about to say that I want the debate to be constructive and to provide an opportunity for hon. Members to put forward any proposals that they wish. I undertake that the Government will listen to the suggestions that are made. I shall take note of and consider what the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) has said. The hon. Gentleman may care to elaborate later.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman proposing any change in the arrangements for the Welsh Council, which is now chaired by Sir Melvyn Rosser? Is he proposing any changes in its function and constitution?

Mr. Edwards: I told the House in the previous Welsh debate that I was considering the position of the Welsh Council. That is still the position. I believe that I am meeting the chairman of the council this week. I do not wish to reach any general conclusion until I have paid him the courtesy of meeting him and discussing the council with him. I shall make

a statement to the House as soon as conclusions have been reached.
The way in which to proceed this afternoon is not to rake over the stale arguments but to see whether we can use the debate as an opportunity to consider any fresh proposals and constructive ideas that may be put forward. In that spirit I urge the House to approve the three motions. It is my belief that in so doing we shall be setting out on a sounder course towards the improved accountability of government in Wales.

4.31 p.m.

Mr. Alec Jones: Our first act is to deal with the draft Wales Act (Repeal) Order 1979. I believe that it is generally unwise to linger at the graveside of anything. It is positively harmful and some people catch their death of cold by so doing. In spite of my own disappointment, I believe that when the people of Wales speak as clearly as they did on 1 March, and with a uniform voice throughout Wales, it behoves all of us who claim to be democrats to pay heed to it. At the same time I do not think it is right that the Wales Act should go unsung. The Act was not a hurriedly drafted sop of nationalism.
First, it was a genuine attempt, after years of discussion, consultation and a Royal Commission, to increase democratic control over the Government machine in Wales. Judging by the comments in the past few days, all of us believe that to be necessary. Secondly, it was a genuine attempt to make the nominated bodies more accountable and democratic. Obviously, from the interventions we have heard today, few of us are satisfied with the present set-up. Thirdly, it was designed to ensure that public expenditure in Wales was more in keeping with Welsh needs and that priorities in public spending were decided by a democratically elected Welsh Assembly. All that has gone as a result of the referendum. However, if we as democrats are to pay heed to that referendum result—I agree that we should—it is equally important that we pay heed to the problems that the Labour Party, when in power thought that the Welsh Assembly could deal with. Those problems still remain, in spite of the referendum result.
One of those problems is that of nominated bodies or quangos. The Secretary of State indicated the difficulties we were up against in dealing with this problem. We want to know which of the nominated bodies in Wales will come under the scrutiny of the Select Committee. I take two examples. I refer first to the arts council. That subject was debated in the Welsh Grand Committee. The Secretary of State is responsible for appointments to that body, although he has no control over it. On the other hand, the Secretary of State appoints only a minority of the members of the Welsh water authority. Will those two bodies come under the jurisdiction of the new Select Committee? The House should be given, at an early moment, a complete list of those nominated bodies responsible to, or coming under the scope of, the new Select Committee.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: The Welsh arts council and the water authority would be the kind of bodies that the Select Committee would expect to be able to examine. I should have thought that all the bodies that would have come under the authority of the proposed Welsh Assembly would come into that category as well.

Mr. Jones: With respect, it is not good enough for the Minister to say he thinks that they will come under that authority. If we propose the setting-up of a Select Committee to examine nominated bodies, before agreeing to it we should at least know which of the nominated bodies will come within the scope of the Committee. I hope that we may have much more detailed information as to which of these bodies comes within the scope.

Mr. Abse: May I impress upon my right hon. Friend, as I sought to impress upon the Secretary of State for Wales, that if the Select Committee is to be meaningful, it must be independent of the Executive? It must be able to take its own initiatives, call whomsoever it wishes, whether the chairman of the Welsh BBC or the chairman of a water authority. The worst that could happen is that the Opposition should give countenance to the idea that if a Select Committee comes into existence it should be beholden to the Secretary of State for Wales to decide what its business should be.

Mr. Jones: I agree with my hon. Friend. The motion says:
A Select committee shall be appointed, to be called the Committee on Welsh Affairs.
However, I should have hoped that it was the intention of the Government, in putting the motion forward, to interpret that generously, in such a way as to ensure that bodies such as those mentioned by my hon. Friend come within the scope of the committee.
I am facing this difficulty. The Secretary of State said that the bodies which would come within the scope were those over which there was a significant degree of ministerial control. That kind of definition leads me into the difficulty of not knowing what are the Government's intentions in this matter.

Mr. English: This matter was specifically discussed in the debate on the Procedure Committee report last night. It is clear that any Select Committee of the House has the right, leaving out Ministers for the moment, to summon before it whom it wishes and to order their attendance.
There is a chance that we may throw away the baby with the bath water if we endeavour to be too pedantic. Nobody suggests that "associated public bodies", which is a skilfully chosen phrase, means bodies associated with any special function. The Minister was more specific than the motion when he referred to a degree of ministerial responsibility. In fact an associated public body may come under no degree of ministerial responsibility, but it may be associated with Wales.

Mr. Jones: This is the difficulty. The Secretary of State, probably with the best of intentions, tried to give a definition that appeared to members of the Opposition to seek to constrict the activities of the Select Committee. Perhaps someone may be able to clear up this matter. I interpret the words "associated public bodies" in the same way as my hon. Friend.

Mr. Donald Anderson: There is another point that requires elucidation. We are told that the Committee will shadow the Welsh Office and associated public bodies. Many of us would prefer that to be the totality of Government operations in Wales. For


example, the operations of the Department of Industry and other Government Departments may be relevant to the Select Committee. We would not want them to be limited to one Government Department, the Welsh Office.

Mr. Jones: I propose to raise that matter later.
More than merely knowing which of these nominated bodies will come within the scope of the Select Committee, we must look also at the question of the composition of nominated bodies.
In the reasoned debate on the arts council in the Welsh Grand Committee we dealt with the accountability side of the matter. However, as soon as the question of the composition of that and other bodies was raised, the balloon went up. Obviously there is strong feeling on both sides of the House that the way in which appointments are made to these nominated bodies is not in the best traditions of democracy. That is a problem which, I suspect, will remain even if we move tonight towards a Select Committee.
There is dissatisfaction in Wales among many local authorities as to how the rate support grant is shared out. Powys and Gwynedd are not content with this method. Hon. Members know that the present system is that the rate support grant is distributed in accordance with a formula devised on an England and Wales basis. It does not necessarily reflect the relative needs of different areas in Wales. We need a separate Welsh rate support grant settlement, more finely tuned to the needs of Wales. I am not sure that a Select Committee is the only means of focusing attention on that need. I believe that it could be accomplished even without a Select Committee. It is one of the problems and we must tackle it.
There is an urgent need for some body to re-examine the National Health Service and to see whether its structure is efficient, effective, and even democratic. There are strong arguments in many parts of the country to the effect that there is no need for area authorities and district authorities. This sort of investigative work has to be carried out by someone.
Despite the fact that there were divisions between the two sides of the House

and within the Labour Party when we were discussing local government within the devolution context, it is my experience, from the years I spent in the Welsh Office, that there is dissatisfaction among a number of local authorities in Wales. While the solutions offered vary in accordance with membership of a county council or district council, it is a problem which someone at some time will have to look at. Problems of this sort can be probed and analysed and solutions for them can be found. In that respect I believe that a Select Committee on Welsh Affairs can make a meaningful contribution.
The House passed judgment last night on the desirability, in general terms, of Select Committees. We have to ensure, first, that Wales is not left out, if this is as good a deal as most hon. Members believe it to be and that the Committee set-up in Wales is the best that can be devised to suit the needs of Wales. In saying that, I do not believe that a Select Committee can solve all our problems. If it can produce solutions to some of them I shall be satisfied.
I therefore give a cautious welcome to the proposals and remind some of my hon. Friends that we have been arguing about this for many years. I found a document drawn up by the late Ness Edwards in January 1968, in which he summarised the views of the Welsh Labour group which were that
A Select Committee should be appointed to investigate … the functioning of the administration throughout the Principality and to report.
My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands) produced a report for us at about the same period, and he was supported by the Welsh Labour group. He said that
The Welsh Back Bencher should be in a position to make a thorough analysis in depth of the nation's problems … to scrutinise, examine and, where necessary, improve the policy formulated by the Administration.
We know to our cost—this applies to both Labour and Conservative Administrations—that Welsh Day can often be curtailed by circumstances beyond the control of the Secretary of State for Wales, whoever that may happen to be. The procedures for Welsh Day, parliamentary Question Time, the Welsh Grand Committee, and the Adjournment debates, do not provide sufficient opportunity for Back-Bench


Members to carry out what is called for in the report of the Select Committee on Procedure, namely, the examination of all aspects of expenditure, administration and policy.
If the wording of the motion means that we should be able to carry out the task set by the Select Committee—the examination of all aspects of expenditure, administration and policy—I am sure that it would meet the requirements of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse). I should like to give these proposals a fair wind, but I have some questions to put to the Secretary of State, and I hope that we shall have some answers to them before the end of this short debate. The Secretary of State said that he would be interested in what we had to say and would take note of it. It is surely somewhat late for him to say that. It would have been more appropriate to have had some consultations in this House on the wording of the motion before asking us to vote on it. It would have been a most suitable subject for discussion in the Welsh Grand Committee. The views of all Welsh Members could then have been aired before the motion was put down in black and white. It is not incapable of amendment, but from a practical point of view it is now somewhat difficult to amend. I am therefore somewhat disappointed by that aspect of it.
As to the future of the Welsh Grand Committee, I believe that it is right that we should wait and see how the Select Committee develops. Meanwhile, we should certainly retain the Welsh Grand Committee, because there are to be some major general debates, such as the one we are to have on 4 July on the economy of Wales. We should retain it also because it is the one vehicle we have whereby all Welsh Members can express their view if they so wish. For these reasons, I hope that we shall retain it.
Concerning the size of the Select Committee, I hope that the Secretary of State has a more open mind than his speech appeared to suggest. I am not suggesting in my amendment that 36 is a perfect number. It may not be the right number, but I tabled the amendment to draw the attention of the House to my view—I think it is shared by some of my hon. Friends—that while 36 may possibly not be the right number, 11 is totally unreasonable. A membership of 11 is too

small to take adequate account of the fact that the Welsh Office is a multi-functional Department, spreading over most of the subjects to be covered by separate Select Committees in England. For example, the Select Committee in England dealing with the environment will be in session year in and year out, keeping a constant eye on environmental problems in England, whereas in Wales one Committee with only 11 Members will have to deal with a range of subjects, so that it will be much more difficult for it to keep a constant eye on any individual subject.
If the Committee decided that it would in the first year examine in depth the issue of housing in Wales, and then roll on and deal with other subjects as years go by, it could be six or seven years before it could come back to the housing problem. I do not think that that would be the sort of continuous investigation that is required. Hon. Members may point out that there can be Sub-Committees, but I believe that our membership of 11 is too small to provide the number of Sub-Committees necessary to examine the various subjects which are the responsibility of the Secretary of State.

Mr. Ioan Evans: I believe that my right hon. Friend's amendment is nearer perfection than he is suggesting, because it refers to a maximum of 36, so there would not have to be 36 members. It could be a number up to 36. That would cover the problems posed by my right hon. Friend about certain hon. Members not being able to serve.

Mr. Jones: rose—

Mr. Abse: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. He is assuming that there will be Sub-Committees. No one on the Government Front Bench has demurred, but are there to be Sub-Committees? The Home Office has specifically said that it would have two Sub-Committees. Is there the power under this order to have Sub-Committees? My right hon. Friend should look at this question.

Mr. Jones: This question must be answered in the Minister's reply. I had assumed that this Select Committee would have the power to operate Sub-Committees. Doubtless the Secretary of State is


not in a position to answer the question now, but we shall expect an answer later.
I am too modest to claim that my amendment is near perfect, but I did use the words "up to a maximum of 36" bearing in mind the fears of the Secretary of State that if we made it otherwise it would impose a severe strain on Welsh Members.

Mr. English: There was a proposal in the Procedure Committee report that there should be a Liaison Committee to deal with this question of Sub-Committees. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Committee cannot operate as an investigatory committee if it is too big? If it is as large as he wishes, it must have Sub-Committees because it is impossible for 20 or 30 people to cross-question a witness. Also, does my right hon. Friend realise that the figure of 11 may be governed by the number of Conservative Members in Wales? If the Committee is to have a governing party majority, it must have English or Scottish Members on it as well.

Mr. Jones: The argument that I put forward for using the words "up to a maximum of 36" is not that I believe one would sensibly have 36 people trying to investigate an item. That would be even worse than all the Welsh trying to get in on a Welsh Grand Committee debate. But by having a fairly large Committee, we would be able to establish Sub-Committees to deal with the specific and different functions of the Welsh Office.

Mr. Anderson: rose—

Mr. Jones: Just one moment. My hon. Friends should appreciate that the Government are on the other side of the House. As far as the number of 11 is concerned, I was not so devious as to think that there was any deviousness on the part of the Secretary of State here. I thought that he had merely followed the Select Committee recommendation.

Mr. Anderson: May I draw my right friend's attention to the fact that in item 5 on the Order Paper, under the heading of "Statutory Instruments (Joint Committee)" there is a specific power granted to that Committee to appoint one or more Sub-Committees? That suggests that a

specific power is neeeded and since no power is specifically granted to this Select Committee, can one conclude that no Sub-Committees can be appointed by it? Does one not need a specific power as in item 5?

Mr. Jones: Again, the Government are responsible for the motion on the Order Paper and it is up to them to interpret it. These points are better put to the Secretary of State. Obviously the question of Sub-Committees is causing considerable concern among my hon. Friends.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I hesitated to intervene at this stage for the sake of good order, but perhaps it would be helpful if I could clarify the position. In order to establish a Sub-Committee, the consent of the House of Commons is required. I do not rule out, particularly in the light of the range of the responsibilities of the Welsh Office, the suggestion that there should be a Sub-Committee. By deciding on a Committee of 11 we have left room for that option. It was expressly to provide room for Sub-Committees that certain of the Select Committees established yesterday were given additional members. Those Select Committees that have 11 members are empowered to have Sub-Committees.
Personally I would prefer to proceed without a Sub-Committee at the outset, and to reconsider the proposal when we had some experience. This is because I am concerned about the burden and the strain that will be placed on the facilities of the House in serving these Committees and the multiplicity of Sub-Committees. I am anxious that we should not get off to a bad start by over-straining the services. However, if strong representations are made during this debate, we shall look at this matter again, because we want to meet the desires of the House of Commons.

Mr. Jones: Already, there have been strong indications, certainly from the Labour side of the House, that there was a need to make provision to allow for Sub-Committees to examine the different functions of the Welsh Office.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: The right hon. Gentleman refers to Sub-Committees. The Select Committee was insistent that we should not have a multiplicity of Sub-Committees and it strongly recommended


that there should be only one Sub-Committee. While I shall certainly consider a single Sub-Committee, I hesitate to recommend a whole multiplicity, which would have to be serviced and would add greatly to the burden.

Mr. Jones: We are not suggesting that we want 36 Sub-Committees. But it is not really fair to suggest that we should follow blindly the pattern of the Select Committee which the House adopted yesterday for specific individual Government Departments. The Welsh Office is different. The Secretary of State for Wales is the Secretary of State for Housing in Wales, just as he is the Secretary of State for Education, Transport and a whole range of other functions in the Principality. That does not apply to other Government Departments which are the subject of these Select Committees.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Jones: I do not think that I should ask for any more assistance. In fairness to hon. Members on both sides of the House I do not think that I should give way again.
We do feel the need for a larger membership to allow Sub-Committees to be set up and carry out the sort of examination that is necessary.
The Select Committee on the Nationalised Industries is to disappear. It will be replaced by a joint Sub-Committee of departmentally-related Committees. How will the Welsh Select Committee fit into this pattern? The nationalised industries—certainly the coal and steel industries—have particular significance in Wales, especially now. Welsh Members want to ensure that if a Sub-Committee examines the major nationalised industries, on which so many of our constituencies depend, there should be a place for Welsh representation on that Sub-Committee.
I turn to the point about composition. If we have, as is recommended, a Committee of 11, and if there are six Government members, that would leave five for the Opposition. That means that the Government would have roughly the same number of members on the Committee as the Opposition, although the Opposition has twice as many hon. Members in Wales. That is hardly fair. If the nationalists and the Liberals are

to get a seat each, we would end up with the Conservatives having six Committee places representing 11 Members of Parliament in Wales, whereas the Labour representation would be cut down to three places, representing 21 elected Members of the House. These are genuine difficulties which are not mirrored in England. Therefore, we should not blindly follow the English pattern. These are matters which a larger Committee membership would have eased and, if there had been genuine consultation before this order was laid, some of the difficulties might have been avoided.
Nevertheless, I wish to give a fair wind to the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs. Though deploring the lack of consultation, I repeat my cautious welcome for the idea. However, I trust that the Government will reconsider the size of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs and ensure that it has power to establish Sub-Committees. Otherwise, many of the functions administered by the Secretary of State for Wales will not receive the same scrutiny in Wales as do many of the functions in England.

5.0 p.m.

Sir Raymond Gower: I wish to echo most of the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. Whatever may have been said in the debate yesterday on the Scottish repeal order, I believe that, in view of what happened at the time of the referendum, there is hardly anything else that Parliament can do but to agree to this order. The decision in the referendum was perhaps more impressive than any decision that might have been taken by this House, because it was a decision by the electors in the Principality.

Mr. English: That was not the case in Scotland.

Sir R. Gower: I am not now dealing with Scotland. The result in Wales was truly decisive—a figure of 79·5 per cent. voting "No" and only 20·5 per cent. "Yes". Even in Gwynedd there was a decisive result against the proposals.
Although it is true that Plaid Cymru electors voted heavily in favour, there was evidence in an ITA poll after the referendum that there was a large majority in the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Parties against devolution. Indeed, it was


significant that in the Labour Party 78 per cent. voted against and only 22 per cent. in favour, and that among the Liberals 83 per cent. voted against and only 17 per cent. for devolution. Among Conservatives, 95 per cent. voted "No" and 5 per cent. "Yes" According to the same poll, there was a majority against devolution even among Welsh-speaking voters in the most Welsh parts of the Principality. This was achieved after a modest campaign on either side. There was no great campaign by supporters or opponents, and comparatively little propaganda from either side. It was almost a spontaneous result among the electors.

Mr. Geraint Howells: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the majority of Welsh people voted against the proposals and not against the principle of devolving power to the people of Wales?

Sir R. Gower: We are dealing with the proposals today, and that is the subject on which I am commenting. Those proposals were decisively rejected by Liberal, Labour and Conservative voters and apparently they were acceptable only to members of Plaid Cymru. This result was achieved after a modest campaign, with little propaganda from either side. Therefore, for those reasons it was all the more impressive. Against that background, surely there is nothing that Parliament can do but to pass this order reversing the original Act.
I welcome the setting up of the Select Committee. The right hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones) thought that this proposal was inadequate, but surely it is an innovation and should be regarded as such. He thought that this proposal was objectionable because it could not be amended. However, amendments could have been tabled to these proposals.

Mr. Alec Jones: I hope that I did not give the impression that I regarded the proposals as objectionable. I tried to point out that there are still problems in Wales, some of which could be dealt with. That is why I gave a cautious welcome to a Select Committee. But they will remain problems which neither a Select Committee nor any of our present procedures will deal with. However, I was not raising any objection to the proposal.

Sir R. Gower: Many of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks reinforce the view expressed by the Secretary of State for Wales to the effect that we should see how the new system works and then decide what improvements are needed, rather than rush into the appointment of a number of Sub-Committees. Indeed, the logic of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks was that we should begin with a similar battery of Committees as will be represented in the main Select Committees in the United Kingdom as a whole. Surely we should be glad that in addition to the Select Committees that will cover United Kingdom services, we shall have a Welsh Committee specially designed to deal with the work of the Welsh Office and associated bodies.
There has been a certain amount of discussion on how far the term "and associated public bodies" should extend. Surely this relates to my hon. Friend's responsibilities and those of his Department in relation to this House and to the extent to which the work of these "associated public bodies" will be included in that responsibility. I may be wrong in that view, but that is my reading of it. The wording is important and may require future amendment to bring in other bodies.
The hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) was dealing with a slightly different matter when he mentioned the right to call witnesses. That is a wide-ranging power, but the terminology in these proposals touches a different issue—not the right of a Select Committee to call witnesses, but the bodies that fall within its remit. That is why the phrase "and associated public bodies" is so important.
On the whole, I regard this proposal for a Select Committee as reasonable. The right hon. Member for Rhondda appeared to believe that the Select Committees in England would be able to investigate the whole area of governmental activity. That is an impossible task and it cannot be done. The value of this system lies in the fact that a Select Committee may investigate any facet of departmental activity. None of the Select Committees which we discussed yesterday will be able to investigate more than a small proportion of the activities of a Department. Therefore, the value of the new Select Committee


on Welsh Affairs may be very great indeed. It is not the extent of its work that is important. Its importance lies in the uncertainty about where its next piece of work will be performed. We shall be keeping on their toes those who serve the Government Departments, whether the political heads or the permanent officials, because they will not know where the Committees will pounce next.
I believe that some of the right hon. Gentleman's fears will prove to be unfounded. I believe that the Select Committee will have a great value in investigating a wide area of Government activity in Wales. The amount of work that it can undertake, even if it is supplied with Sub-Committees, will be relatively small, but I believe that its value will be as great if we begin with one main Select Committee.
My right hon. Friend said that he would be prepared to reconsider the situation a little later and that he may even consider adding a Sub-Committee. Experience may reveal the need for an additional body. However, in the first place, it is important to set up the main body.
I was interested to hear mention of the activities of the Welsh Grand Committee. I should be happy to retain that Committee. Its work is different, in that it is not investigatory or inquisitorial. In that Committee we can conduct the broad debates on Welsh affairs which cannot be taken on the Floor of the House. I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider—some people may denounce this as mere window dressing—the value of an occasional meeting of the Welsh Grand Committee in the Principality. The suggestion of an occasional sitting of the Welsh Grand Committee in Cardiff has been put forward before. That might take place in the Welsh Office or in another suitable place. My right hon. Friend might consider that to be an additional useful innovation.
I support the initiation of the Select Committee. It will be a valuable addition to our armoury. We already have Welsh Day, the Welsh Grand Committee and the special arrangements for dealing with Welsh affairs, but this will be a valuable addition. As time goes on, we can learn from the Select Committee, improve it and possibly add to it. I support the motion strongly.

5.10 p.m.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Nobody loves a funeral more than the people of Wales. However, this is one funeral which it is better to pass by quickly. Clearly, the Assembly is dead—rejected decisively on St. David's Day. Now, long live the Select Committee.
Although the protracted debate on the Wales Act was abortive in one sense, it was fruitful in another. For the first time for many decades there was the opportunity to debate the constitutional development of Wales and to examine the adequacy of the control procedures in this place and outside. In that debate many of the criticisms of the existing procedures were shown to be well founded. Therefore this response by the Government is proper in the context of the debate.
The debate exposed the inadequacies of existing scrutiny and control procedures and highlighted the fact that there is in United Kingdom politics a Welsh element which it would be folly to ignore. I believe that the solution—although a part-solution—is a good one. It does not have the dangers of bureaucratisation and separatism which were contained in the Assembly proposal.
I was interested in the Secretary of State's remarks about the other side of the coin, the other body which was debated during the course of the devolution debate—the Welsh Council and an extension of it. It has been suggested that an all-Wales body, perhaps incorporating senior representatives of Welsh local authorities on an indirectly elected basis, could be set up. It is clear that little thought has been given to that suggestion in the Welsh Office, and it will be interesting to see how such a body might operate now and how it will relate to the Select Committee. It might be better to look at that side of the problem and the Select Committee side of the problem before going ahead with the proposal.
However, I welcome the proposal as far as it goes. In principle it is a good step, but its practical effectiveness will depend on a number of factors, the first of which is the spirit in which it is viewed by the Government. How quickly will Select Committee reports be debated either in the House or in the Grand Committee? It would be a little artificial to hold debates on the Select Committee


in the Welsh Grand Committee, because there would be an overlap of individual members from both Committees. Therefore, it would be better if the matter came before the House in some form.
The seriousness with which the Government view the Committee will be shown by the resources that they are prepared to allocate to it. I refer particularly to the staffing arrangements of the Committee and how the specialist advisers will be made available. That will be vital to give the Committee bite and control over Government expenditure.
To what extent will the Committee be able to sponsor studies? There is a vast reservoir of talent in the University of Wales which could be called upon by the Committee for various studies. To what extent will the Committee be empowered to do that?
I hope that at an early stage the Committee will consider the subject of housing in Wales. For far too long there has been a lack of priority in dealing with the scandal of Welsh housing. I hope that the Committee will be able to call before it not only Welsh Office officials but senior officials of local government, to see how artificial or otherwise are the waiting lists in Wales. I hope, too, that the Committee will be able to call upon various other housing experts, and upon bodies such as MIND and Shelter, so that we can act as an effective pressure group in favour of providing greater resources for housing within the Principality.
The Government, perhaps by not consulting in advance, have hit on the number of 11 members. There is nothing magical in that figure. Again, there is nothing magical in the figure of 36 that was put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones). Indeed, that figure is inappropriate, because of the 36 Welsh Members, a number are in government and therefore could not serve on what is essentially a Back Bench investigative Committee. Even at this late stage, is there no scope for both sides to be in a negotiating position, both having made their starting bids? It should be recognised that there is an imbalance between the parties because the Labour Party has a proportion of two to one of the Welsh Members. Perhaps the numbers could be arranged

within the range of 12 to 16, so that there is a proper representation of the Labour Party and the other two minority parties on the Select Committee.
The Secretary of State conceded that if the Committee is to appoint Sub-Committees it has to be given specific power to do so—such power as is given to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which is referred to on today's order paper. The Committe may not appoint Sub-Committees immediately, but I believe that it should be empowered to do so.

Mr. Donald Coleman: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Select Committee on Overseas Aid in the 1966 Parliament had precisely that power?

Mr. Anderson: I was not aware of that, nor am I aware whether the Select Committee took advantage of the power. However, I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will refer to the matter in his reply. I hope, too, that the Government, even at this late stage, will consider giving the Committee that power. Whether the power is exercised is another matter. I hope that the Committee will not be debarred from appointing a Sub-Committee as a result of the wording of the motion.
I am impressed by the fact that we are told that:
A Select Committee shall be appointed … to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of the Welsh Office and associated public bodies".
Enough has been said about what is incorporated within the term "associated public bodies"—which quangos are included and which are not. I noted the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda about the proposal made by Mr. Ness Edwards in 1967 or thereabouts. The proposal was that the Committee should be empowered to look at the range of governmental activities in Wales. Although the Welsh Office was in existence at that time, albeit with more limited functions, it was proposed that the Select Committee should not be confined to the Welsh Office—of all Government Departments. Clearly, the Department of Industry for example has substantial powers over employment within Wales. Again, the Ministry of Transport has substantial power in respect of railways within Wales.
I hope that the terms will not be so narrowly construed as to confine the Committee to examine the Welsh Office only. If, for example, there were to be a Sub-Committee on transport, or if the Select Committee were to examine an aspect of transport in Wales I believe that it should be able to call witnesses before it from the Ministry of Transport because of the responsibilities of that Department within Wales.

Sir Raymond Gower: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we have to take account of the fact that civil servants in the Ministry of Transport and other Departments may resent being responsible not only to the Select Committee on Transport but to the Welsh, Scottish and Northern Ireland Select Committees?

Mr. Anderson: I hope that civil servants will not resent being called to account as public servants, though there is a burden on us not to give them too much work. I hope that they will not resent being called upon to answer when a Select Committee wishes to examine them.
We should not overestimate what the Select Committee will be able to do. There is no possibility of their advancing on the lines of American committees, because there is no separation of powers in this country, and our party discipline is much stricter.
The Government's proposals are an important democratic advance which should not be seen as a development of which the Welsh Office should be afraid. The Committee could assist the Welsh Office in many ways by adding to the debate in Wales and by acting as a pressure group to get increased resources for Wales. As the hon. Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower) said, the Committee will be able to chivvy civil servants and keep them on their toes because of the uncertainty about where the spotlight will fall.
I hope that the Government will see the Select Committee not as an enemy but as a valuable tool and a body which can help them with their responsibilities.

5.22 p.m.

Mr. Tom Hooson: I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) refer to the proposals as an advance

for democracy. I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman meant by his reference to a fruitful funeral, but I agree with him that some good things came out of the devolution debate in Wales. It provided an opportunity to think constructively about a number of subjects.
I welcome the tone of the two Opposition speeches that we have heard so far. I was glad that the right hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones) offered a fair wind to the Select Committee, even though he had a number of detailed criticisms. As one of the hon. Members from Powys, I heartily agree that we must be dissatisfied with the rate support grant, which is most disadvantageous to the rural areas of Wales.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower) referred to the remarkable size of the rejection of the Welsh Assembly. It is unusual in a democracy for the winning side ever to get up to 60 per cent. of the votes. For the "No" vote to have reached 79·5 per cent. in the referendum was a remarkable achievement. There was not a single county in Wales where the majority was not 2 to 1 or better.
I was always sceptical about opinion polls, and having seen some ludicrous and inept polls carried out in South Wales constituencies during the recent general election, my scepticism has become even greater. I agree that the figures published by Opinion Research Centre on the basis of interviews with Welsh voters immediately after they had voted were a remarkable testimony of the rejection of the Assembly proposal by supporters of all three main parties.
About 95 per cent. of Conservatives voted against the Assembly, 83 per cent. of Liberal voters voted against it, and 78 per cent. of Labour supporters voted "No" Even some Plaid Cymru supporters voted against the Assembly. I may murmer modestly that the Conservative Party was the only party that understood the feelings of the Welsh people on this issue from the beginning, but it is right to pay tribute to the courage and quality of contributions to the devolution debate made by a number of Labour Members.
I hope that in the quality of that discussion, which was not confined to party lines, and the common ground that we


are developing in this debate, we are laying the ground work for a constructive approach to Welsh affairs over the next few years. We are embarking on something of a constitutional experiment and conditions could be favourable for progress on this subject in Wales.
It has never been easy to build a solid Welsh interest in measures of home rule. Home rule Bills have failed before now in Wales. They failed in the 1890s, and it is clear that Wales was not prepared to support the previous Government's attempt to set up a Welsh Assembly.
The hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) asked in an intervention whether the referendum result was a rejection of the previous Government's Bill, because it was as full of holes as a colander, or a rejection of devolution of any sort. Of course, no one knows the answer to that question, but I believe that while there is no great feeling among the Welsh people for devolution there is no great feeling against it, either.
The Welsh people are looking to the politicians to work out some ideas for the proper goverment of Wales and to have the courage of their convictions to do the things that they have been elected to do. If there is one lesson to be learned from the referendum it is that politicians should have the courage of their convictions. We cannot pass the buck to the electorate.

Mr. Geraint Howells: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that perhaps we ought to give the people of Wales the right to decide in a referendum whether they believe in the principle of devolving power? We could then get together in the Select Committee or elsewhere to work out proposals that would be acceptable to the people of Wales.

Mr. Hooson: The hon. Gentleman has more confidence than I in abstract questions obtaining concrete results. We have a responsibility to put concrete proposals to our people. The previous Government submitted concrete proposals and they failed spectacularly.
If there was a major flaw in the proposal for an Assembly, it was that it did not make enough sense, though there were reasonable objectives in the proposal. There was only one argument in favour of the Assembly. There is a need for super-

vision of the work of the Welsh Office and numerous nominated bodies. I have no difficulty in agreeing about the need to control those bodies. There is, however, a degree to which the number of nominated bodies can be reduced with no great loss to Welsh public life, but it is easy to identify circumstances in which a watchdog body could be effective.
Let me give two examples. First, both sides of the House have been shocked by the failure of local authorities to spend their allocations for housing in two successive years. An annual underspending of £28 million was followed by another of £11 million. That was in an area where housing problems are particularly severe.
The second example is contained in the final report of the Price Commission describing lax management within the Welsh Water Authority. A body searching among some of the nominated bodies in Wales would undoubtedly bring about improvements in the quality of administration. If the Welsh Assembly could have given that one gain, of the supervision of bodies, the price would have been excessive. We should have achieved overmanning in politics and tripled the number of professional politicians in Wales. Clearly, that prospect did not appeal to the Welsh people. We should have had the potential of conflict between a Cardiff Assembly and Westminster on the one hand and local authorities on the other. We should have had the expense of a new building.
I am confident that we achieve the substance of what would have been available in the Assembly much more economically and efficiently through a Select Committee. I must rely very much on the experience of hon. Members more senior than I, but everything that I have studied about the form of parliamentary Committees convinces me that the effectiveness of a Select Committee depends very much on its working coherently as a team and with small numbers. Therefore, I support the view that we should begin with rather modest numbers. Let us walk before we try to run.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Geraint Howells: I have always held the view that the Welsh people would be better governed if they had their own Parliament. I am very disappointed that the Wales Act is to be


repealed. Many of us fought very hard for the principle of devolving power to the people of Wales. We failed to persuade the majority of the Welsh people to vote for the proposals, but I still believe that the majority are in favour of the principle of devolving power, though they would not accept the proposals put forward by the previous Government. To be fair to the Welsh people, I should add that if proposals had been put to the people of Wales similar to those put to the people of Scotland many more would have voted for them.
Today, the alternative to the status quo is for me to return to the people of Ceredigion, whom I represent, and for other right hon. and hon. Members to return to their constituents, and tell them that the choice now is between a Select Committee in London to look after their interests and the status quo. It is a great shame that the Government will not put something more constructive to the people of Wales.
Just because the referendum on a Welsh Parliament was defeated earlier this year, it does not mean that devolution is dead. It will continue to be an issue, as it has been in the past 50 years.
Talking about referendums, I wonder whether, if a referendum had been held a quarter of a century ago, we should have a Welsh Office today. I also wonder whether, if the people of Wales had the right to vote in a referendum on the matter, they would accept the present Government proposals on a Select Committee. I very much doubt it. The Welsh people seek proposals for a Welsh Parliament to look after their interests, with responsibility given to other people in Wales as well.
The problems that eventually led to the conception of the Wales Act still exist. We are ignoring them, sweeping them under the carpet and hoping that they will disappear. That is not a realistic attitude. The formation of a Select Committee is no real answer. It is simply tinkering with the problems. Some would say that setting it up was a rather insulting gesture by a political party that has never really been aware of the problems that face Wales.
It must also be remembered that the referendum result proved nothing conclusively. It demonstrated that the people

of Wales did not care for the Act as it was drafted. Many were uncertain of the implications, because of the unprincipled scaremongering initiated by opponents of devolution. Others felt that the Act did not meet the needs of Wales in full.
However, when people in Wales are asked for their views about government from Westminster they seldom express any satisfaction with the system. The majority will say "You will have to change the system." I take the electoral system for the sake of argument. I believe that many changes in it in the years to come are essential.
There is also a definite feeling that government is far too remote from the people, that Welsh electors have no say in their future, and that we are being governed by a faceless bureaucracy in Whitehall over which we have little control. I am sure that people who hold those beliefs will not find a House of Commons Committee an adequate answer to their criticisms. We need to examine the whole question seriously and formulate a positive approach.
It is agreed that centralisation of government is no longer efficient or desirable and that a degree of decentralisation is to be encouraged if democracy is to flourish. The Liberals advocate a federal system, in which Wales, Scotland and the regions of England would have their own Assemblies and be given equal treatment. A radical approach of that kind is essential. I believe that the concept of devolution would then gain acceptance from the British people as a whole and enthusiastic support from the electorate of Wales.
If devolution is to succeed in the United Kingdom, we should have parity within the nations. Having spoken to many of my colleagues and other hon. Members representing English constituencies, I have found that many are in favour of devolving power to the regions of England. The sooner many of us who believe in devolution get together and put forward proposals giving parity, the sooner people throughout the land will accept devolution.
I believe that the majority of hon. Members representing Wales, if not all 36 of us, should have the opportunity to serve on the Committee. I am not in favour of the Secretary of State's


figure of 11. Although I am not in favour of the proposals, I wish them well and hope that they will serve the people of Wales and give a degree of satisfaction to those serving on the Committee.
However, a Select Committee is not the answer to the aspirations of the people of Wales. What we need is a Welsh Parliament, and the sooner we start campaigning again for it, the better it will be for everyone. We are proud of our culture and language. As I have asked many times before, how long must we wait before we have our own Parliament—five, 15, 50 or 500 years? We have campaigned for the past 50 years. I hope that the day will soon dawn when we, the people of Wales, get together and fight for our goal—a Welsh Parliament representing the people of Wales.

5.40 p.m.

Mr. Keith Best: I was very glad to hear that the right hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones) and the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) did not intend to tarry at the graveside of the Wales Act. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) is still crying over the bier and is not adopting the same stance as other right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Benches seem to be doing. But, with great respect to the hon. Member for Cardigan, rather than playing with the ashes that drop from the funeral pyre he should be heaping them on his own head, because he knows that he got it horribly wrong. The people's verdict proved quite conclusively that what the hon. Member for Cardigan wanted for Wales was not what the Welsh people wanted. The hon. Member cannot gainsay that unless he intends to gainsay the whole democratic process.

Mr. Geraint Howells: When I campaigned throughout Wales trying to persuade the Welsh people to vote for the then Government's proposals, I did not say that I was attempting to sell Labour's proposals to the people. I went round trying to persuade people to accept the principle of devolving power to the people of Wales.

Mr. Best: I accept that, of course. The sad thing was that the people of

Wales were never asked whether they wanted to accept the principle of devolution. What was before them was a specific measure, the Wales Act, and that is what the people rejected.
I was very glad to hear how the right hon. Member for Rhondda and the right hon. Member for Swansea, East put the matter. It seems that they have accepted the verdict of the people. I came here today expecting to hear the hollow sound of the beating of breasts. That has not been the case, and it is encouraging to find that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House seem to accept now, though perhaps with one or two exceptions, that the Wales Act is finally dead and should go.
I confess that when I heard about the promotion of the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock), I thought that some realisation was creeping into the Opposition Benches that the view which had prevailed against the Wales Act was in the ascendant at last. I hope that that is a view which prevails now in this Chamber.
The Wales Act must be repealed for two main reasons. The first is that it is offensive to have an Act on the statute book which the people have so clearly spoken against and turned down. The second is that I believe that the Wales Act itself was a negation of the concept of devolution.
I turn first to the fact that the Act was rejected wholeheartedly and overwhelmingly by the people of Wales and that it would be wholly wrong now for this House to allow it to remain on the statute book, lying around the corridors of power in this House like some somnambulant dinosaur ready to be paraded at some stage in the future with a greater grotesqueness than perhaps an elephant which arrived on the doorstep of one of the right hon. Members sitting on the Opposition Benches. That is why the Act should go, because it is an offence to democracy when the people have spoken against it so overwhelmingly.
But, perhaps more pertinently, the Act was also a negation of the concept of devolution. I take one point made by the hon. Member for Cardigan. It was that people did not speak against the concept of devolution when they voted against the Wales Act. Perhaps we are


unfortunate in this House in not knowing how the people of Wales really feel about the concept of devolution. However, from my campaigning throughout the referendum and thereafter I have gauged the feeling of most people to whom I spoke to be that they felt that the Wales Act was a measure not so much in furtherance of the idea of devolution as merely creating another tier of local government. They found that abhorrent. They found it abhorrent when they realised that if one of my constituents in Anglesey had a problem with education, he or she would have to go not to Caernarvon but to Cardiff with that problem. That was the reality of what the Wales Act was proposing. We Conservatives believe that the idea of devolution is to bring government closer to the people and not take it from them as the Wales Act proposed.
I turn to the idea of a Select Committee. I accept fully what the right hon. Member for Rhondda said about such a Select Committee needing to have teeth. Obviously it is no good having a Select Committee which is not able to scrutinise fully the powers of the Welsh Office and associated bodies, if it is merely to be a gesture or sop to those who want some form of devolution, and if it is put forward by the Government as some kind of palliative. That is not what it is, and I do not believe that it should be looked at in that way. The Select Committee can have teeth so long as it is set up and administered sensibly.
One criticism that can be levelled against the present proposal for a Select Committee is that there is no specific reference to the Committee's being able to call Ministers before it. However, I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will look at the reality of the situation. If the Select Committee wished to call before it the Secretary of State for Wales or one of the Under-Secretaries of State, it would be an act of crass political folly, if nothing else, for the Minister concerned to fail to appear before the Committee. Certainly it would be the subject of a great deal of comment thereafter in the Chamber of the House. I think that right hon. and hon. Members need not worry too much about the absence of a specific power to call Ministers before the Select Committee.
But there is a difficulty in that there is no real power in any event. As a newly elected hon. Member, I bow to the judgment of more experienced right hon. and hon. Members. However, I see in paragraph 6.48 of the first report of the Select Committee on Procedure:
The Clerk of Committees suggested that the House might be wise to think twice' before granting the new committees an unlimited power to appoint sub-committees.
I shall deal with that in a moment. But, as I understand it, there is no power for a Select Committee to summon hon. Members of this House before it.

Mr. Ifor Davies: As the hon. Gentleman observed, the motion refers to the power of the Committee to send for persons. I assume that a Minister is still a person. Therefore, the motion provides for a Minister to be summoned to the Committee.

Mr. Best: I am grateful for that intervention but, as I understand it, that can be achieved only by an order of the House if a person fails to appear before a Select Committee. As I say, I bow to greater and more experienced judgment, but that is my understanding of it.
We ought to look first at the powers proposed for the Select Committee. They seem to be extremely wide. According to the motion, the Committee will have power to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of the Welsh Office and associated public bodies. The motion says:
A Select Committee shall be appointed, to be called the Committee on Welsh Affairs.
My understanding of that is that "associated public bodies" qualifies not "the Welsh Office" but "Welsh Affairs" and so will encompass all those public bodies which have specific responsibility for matters in Wales.
I am much persuaded by the arguments put forward by my right hon. and hon. Friends that we should have a Select Committee that is not too unwieldy in size. A Select Committee needs to have teeth. It would not be effective with a plethora of hon. Members whose attendance record was not great and who would not feel such a degree of commitment and sense of corporate existence as would a small Committee. The number should


be more commensurate with that for other Select Committees, as proposed.
The report of the Select Committee on Procedure states in paragraph 5.52
We do not in any case believe that size is in itself a necessary indicator either of its ability to perform its functions effectively, although a committee obviously needs a reasonable minimum size to be viable and may need rather more Members if its activities increase significantly in scope or if subcommittees are to be appointed.
I accept what the right hon. Member for Rhondda said. There is need for powerful Sub-Committees of the Select Committees. But hon. Members should wait and see how the Select Committee functions rather than set up a whole mass of Sub-Committees that may not be fully exercised. I hope, on balance, that we will say today that we warmly accept the idea of the Select Committee. One must look at the ability to set up Sub-Committees only in the light of the experience of the operation of the Select Committee. A most important factor is that this Select Committee should have adequate staffing, so that it has the resources to scrutinise the powers that will come within its study.
I express the esperance that hon. Members will support the idea of the Select Committee as a full and viable alternative to what was put forward in the Wales Act and far more to the benefit of the people of Wales than the Wales Act would have been.

5.53 p.m.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I suppose that the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Best) is now the authentic voice of Anglesey, following Mr. Cledwyn Hughes. The authentic voice has changed over the last few months, especially on this issue. I agree with the hon. Gentleman on his reasoning for people in Anglesey rejecting the devolution Bill. The fact that all education decisions would be moved from Caernarvon to Cardiff was the understanding that existed in the campaign. It was the sort of muddled thinking that led to the conclusion we saw.
The hon. Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower) referred to the non-campaign. He said that there had not been a campaign, and that there had been no propaganda. That is what led to the uncertainty

and the ignorance in the referendum which led, understandably, to people, in their uncertainty, opting for the status quo. We are in the final act of a long charade—a charade that has been going on for decades in this Chamber and accentuated over the past 10 or 15 years.
We have seen the pretence by various parties, most recently by the Labour Party, that they had the determination and the commitment to provide for Wales and for Scotland, as previously for Ireland, by their own volition, a formula of some limited self-government that would give satisfaction to the people of these countries while retaining some unity and integrity of the Kingdom as a whole. That myth has ended with this referendum. A hundred years of radical politics have ended. The first day of March was a watershed. We should now be aware that there is no possibility in the future of arriving at a compromise in Welsh politics that allows suitable self-determination for the people of Wales within the British context.
The choice is now "all or nothing". It is total self-government for anyone who believes in any autonomy for Wales. That is written clear. It is a result of this referendum, and follows from the manner in which certain hon. Members, with one or two honourable exceptions, campaigned in the lead-up to that referendum. What would have happened in 1964 if there had been a referendum on the Welsh Office? Would the right hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) now be sitting on the Treasury Bench? Of course not. Would there have been all the arguments about 2,000 civil servants in Cardiff, all the arguments about another tier of government that was unnecessary, and all the peripheral arguments in the referendum on 1 March?
It would not have happened. The right hon. Gentleman knows that. How many other changes would have occurred through this Chamber if there had been a referendum on each occasion? Would we have seen the introduction of a pension in the early part of this century? Would we have seen the introduction of a Welfare State? Would we have seen the social legislation for which the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) has worked so hard over recent years? The hon. Gentleman has acknowledged in the


media that had there been a referendum on these issues the people would have voted against them.
It is easy to find 100,000 reasons against any proposal. There are many fewer reasons for taking positive steps in a certain direction. If there were a referendum now on hanging, the conclusion might be very different from the outcome of a vote in this House. Is there to be a referendum on hanging? I doubt it, and I hope not, although for many people the issue of hanging may be one that they understand much more than the issues in the referendum campaign for the Welsh Assembly. The whole institution of a referendum is under question as a result of what we have seen in Scotland and Wales.
If there had been a different result and a majority in Wales, as in Scotland, in the referendum, we know that there would have been no Assembly anyway. That is the extent of democracy that emanates from this place. It is causing cynicism among young people in Wales. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) I am in a position to hear the feedback coming from Wales. It is a cynicism with the so-called democracy of the institutions of Parliament and the inability of Governments to fulfil their manifesto commitments, even if they so wished.

Mr. Anderson: rose—

Mr. Wigley: I will not give way. Other hon. Members wish to speak. The inability to hold a referendum on a fair basis was seen in the introducing of the 40 per cent. rule. This put a damper on the campaign.
There is cynicism about the power of the media in this type of referendum. The day after the then Prime Minister spoke in Swansea—his only meeting in Wales during the campaign—the Daily Mirror, one of the papers most widely read in Wales, failed to devote a single column inch to the speech. This was much more relevant and central to the result in Wales than it was in Scotland, which at least has its own newspapers. We saw in the campaign the diametrically opposite so-called "facts" put forward, for example, on the cost of the Assembly. Those in favour were saying that it would cost ½p per person per week. Those

against the Assembly were adding up the cost to the end of the century and stating how many hospitals in the valleys of Gwent this would mean if the proposals did not go through. It is not surprising that the electorate, at the end of the day, did not know where they stood and opted for the status quo.
We saw the reluctance of the last Government—with one or two notable exceptions—to campaign for the Assembly, even though this was apparently their policy. The stark silence from so many directions was underlined by the refusal to undertake a ministerial broadcast. Yet we saw how a ministerial broadcast could be used so spuriously in the approach to the vote of confidence at the end of the last Parliament.
Many people are now asking whether national aspirations can be attained through constitutional and political methods. I hope that they can, but I argue with less conviction today than I did before. The devolution issue led directly to the fall of the last Government. I have no doubt that the present incumbents of the Welsh Office and No. 10 Downing Street should thank for their tenancies the hon. Members for Pontypool and Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) and the gang of six.
During the campaign opponents of the Welsh Assembly based their case on a number of issues. They said that it would cost too much. They said that it would cost £13 million, and argued that that was not good value for a talking shop. But now the proposal is for something which is even more of a talking shop. What is a Select Committee but a talking shop? It has no power to put into practice any of its recommendations. Volumes of Select Committee reports are stacked on shelves and nobody takes a blind bit of notice of them.
It was argued that an Assembly would lead to too much bureaucracy, but, as the unemployed in Cardiff know, 1,100 jobs would have been created by the Assembly. We did not hear much about bureaucracy in the run-up to the European election. The European Parliament creates an extra tier of Government and only 33 per cent. of the people voted for members of that Assembly, but the Government went ahead with it. There is a duality of standards between what is


acceptable for Wales and what is acceptable in more favoured arenas.
Throughout the campaign people said "Ah yes, we are in favour of the principle of devolution and possibly of an Assembly, but not this Assembly, not this form of devolution and not this Wales Act." I wonder whether those people will have a choice of any other type of Assembly or Wales Act. It behoves those who argued in that way to produce positive alternative proposals.
People said that devolution would put up the rates, yet without the Assembly rates are shooting up. So much for the cynicism in the campaign. We heard much about the slippery slope to separatism, yet the option now is the status quo or full self-government. Those who want any devolution or autonomy for Wales have no alternative but to come all the way with us.
There is a need for a Parliament in Wales—not a talking shop or an impotent Assembly. We need a Parliament with powers to make laws, to control our economy and to tackle problems such as unemployment, and deal with taxation powers. If we had such a Parliament we should not now be shuddering at the prospect of a Tory Government ruining our council housing stock. We should not be worrying about what is to happen to our railway lines, about the cost of the water authority, or the cuts in road programmes. If we had such as Assembly there would be somebody to speak up for Wales—somebody who would be a buffer against the iniquities of the Tory Government. We shall not have that. We are now lying back facing the rape of the Welsh people by the Tory Government. It will not take long for the 'Welsh people to find out what that means.
The Wales Act 1978 may be dead, but that was the only issue determined by the referendum. Even if the Act is dead, I believe that it is unwise to take it off the statute book at a time when there are to be further discussions about devolution for Scotland.
But there are to be no all-party discussions about Wales. During the passage of the Wales Act, the Conservatives said that there should be more discussion. The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym)—now Secretary of State for

Defence—said that there should be more discussions in the Welsh context, but now the Conservatives are the Government and they can forget about Wales. They are over the hump of the referendum.
Questions remain unanswered. Questions were raised by Members of all parties in the referendum campaign. We heard much about the burden of work on the Welsh Office. How will that be tackled without an Assembly? The work is still there. Will there be more Ministers in the Welsh Office? Will there be a Member of the House of Lords in the Welsh Office, as we read in the Liverpool Daily Post recently?
We heard about the need for greater scrutiny of secondary legislation because legislation was going through on the nod. How shall we control that? There are no proposals from the Government or from the Opposition Front Bench.
How are we to control the nominated bodies? The hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) suggested that Members of Parliament should sit on those bodies.

Mr. Ioan Evans: I did not.

Mr. Wigley: The hon. Member said that Members of Parliament or local councillors, or both, should sit on nominated bodies. He can read what he said in Hansard. How many times has he attended meetings of the National Library of Wales, the National Museum of Wales or the courts of university colleges of which he is a member?

Mr. Evans: I suggested that instead of creating an Assembly with 80 members on full-time salaries we should bring Members of Parliament and representatives of the county and district councils together to determine who should serve on the nominated bodies. I did not suggest that Members of Parliament should have seats on those bodies. Instead of those nominated members being answerable to a Secretary of State they would be answerable to the elected Members of the House and to district and county council representatives. I never said that Members of Parliament should serve on nominated bodies.

Mr. Wigley: Perhaps the hon. Member used his language loosely in the debate, since I listened to him carefully. He seems to be saying that some indirectly


elected Welsh council should be a replacement for the Assembly and that such a body should nominate people to run the various bodies that affect much of Wales and control between £4 million and £5 million of expenditure. That is quite unsatisfactory. The answerability for public expenditure in Wales was an issue during the referendum campaign. There will be no answer on that from the Select Committee, or from such a Welsh council. Under the Wales Act there would have been flexibility in spending priorities. There will be no such flexibility now.
The Assembly would have been a forum in which I could have described the problems of my constituency in my own language. I do not suppose that I shall be allowed to do that in the Select Committee, in the Grand Committee, or in this Chamber. That is the regard that this Government, this Chamber, this Parliament and this city have for the language of my country. That need would have been fulfilled by the Welsh Assembly.
The Assembly would have been a focus for the energies and aspirations of the young people of Wales. That focus has disappeared. All that remains is a void—a vacuum in the politics of Wales. Where there is a political vacuum other things creep in. I do not know what will creep in to fill this vacuum, but I am sure that something will.
A Select Committee—a talking shop—is proposed. Will it be able to talk about the coal and steel industries in Wales? Will it be able to talk about the Manpower Services Commission or the University of Wales? I doubt it. Will there be any guarantee that anything will result from the Select Committee's reports? I doubt it. This is the talking shop of all talking shops. We understand that six of the 11 members of the Committee will be Conservatives. The Secretary of State said that Government Ministers cannot be part of it. That means that the three Welsh Office Ministers will not take part, nor will the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Stradling Thomas). That leaves all six Welsh Conservative Back Benchers on the Select Committee, including the PPS to the Secretary of State. That will be a nice set-up for the Tory Party.
Will the Committee be able to do anything about the health authorities in

Wales? The Secretary of State wants them to have greater freedom of action with less involvement by central Government. The people of Wales are worried that the health authorities are not answerable to anybody. They are worried about other nominated bodies. What will happen to the Countryside Commission? Will such a Commission be set up irrespective of the Act hitting the ground, or are we to lose it in perpetuity?
These questions have been unanswered. I, my colleagues and my party in Wales will not now be involved in some possibly unworkable compromise Assembly set in a British context. We shall be working for full self-government, and the sooner we get that the sooner we shall get an answer to our problems.

6.10 p.m.

Sir Anthony Meyer: It is sad to hear the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) expending his great talents on vain and idle regrets. I had no hesitation in opposing the Wales Act, if only because of the fatal flaw at its heart, which was the setting up of an Assembly with the power to spend money but with no duty to raise it. I was not opposed to the concept of devolution, and therefore I am glad to be here today as we bury the Wales Act and christen a Welsh Select Committee—a modest start in the direction of giving the people of Wales more say over the decisions which affect their daily lives.
The very existence of this Select Committee should go some way towards giving the people of Wales the feeling that they have more control over their destiny, but it will be the duty of that Select Committee to give reality to those hopes. Those who have the privilege of serving on that Select Committee should be deeply conscious of that duty. They must ensure that its activities lead to the people of Wales having a greater say in the decisions which affect their daily lives. We shall do them no service if we raise their hopes too high. Clearly, this Select Committee, with its limited resources, cannot carry out all the functions which were to have been laid on that expensive and lavish Assembly.
I thought that the right hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones) went a little far in the number of issues that he suggested the Select Committee might conceivably


tackle if it were increased to the size that he would like. I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower) was a little closer to the mark on that score.
The hon. Member for Rhondda did the House a great service in suggesting some of the issues which the Committee might tackle, and tackle in a spirit of cross-party discussion and co-operation which is characteristic of a Select Committee. Everything remains to be seen how this Committee will function.
Perhaps I should remind my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that Mr. Harold Macmillan used to say that he did not want constructive criticism, he wanted praise. I assure my right hon. Friend that he will not be getting praise from the Select Committee, and that he will not always think that the criticism it offers is constructive, but I think that in the long run he will come to believe that the decision which I hope the House will take this evening is a good one for the people of Wales.

6.13 p.m.

Mr. Leo Abse: Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones) I, too, do not want to linger long at the graveside. Perhaps necromancers enjoy funerals, but I do not. Although the corpse was originally misconceived, and, when half alive, was seen to be misshapen, still I do not say my few words, I assure the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley), in order to relish these obsequies.
It is true—I acknowledge it—that I participated in the ending of the life of this poor creature. I acknowledge also that I and five other Labour Members gave the opportunity to the people of Wales to put an end to this wretch. After all, it was the people of Wales who, having heard the accusations we made, having heard the often eloquent defences made by members of the Liberal Party and Plaid Cymru who believed in the Act, and having heard other defences advanced by people with unbelievable cynicism, condemned this poor thing to death.
I note today that few of its once-ardent friends are even present. They have slunk away. Those who are present are diffident in coming forward to give their

encomiums above the coffin. It is not because I feel guilt at the slaying that I am saying this, and certainly not because I wish to compose a threnody at the graveside, but because, whenever a death takes place, even of evil beings, wise men do not rush from the cemetery but rather try, even if for a brief moment, to gain a new perspective, to make appraisals of their lifestyles and their philosophies. They do not merely look back in anger, as the hon. Member for Caernarvon has.
Apart from the hon. Member no one here—such are false friends—appears to be in heavy mourning. But not even those who caused its death should be celebrants, for that would be unseemly. For the dynamic behind the devolution Act, sick though I believed it to be, was a response, although an inauthentic response, to some of the bewilderments, the especial anomie, the estrangements of our contemporary Wales. It was a response to an emptiness that was marvellously and curiously lacking in other days, in the days of adversity in Wales, not in these days of comparative prosperity. I refer to the days when community flourished and egoism withered. Sick though I believe the response to these problems to have been, the Act nevertheless was in some ways less purulent, less toxic a response than that given by those in Wales who helped to give us this Tory Government which, by shabby philosophy, mocks at the humane radicalism which so far in this century has been the unique contribution of Welshmen to British politics.
The new Secretary of State and his acolytes may feel triumphant that by teasing out all the avarice in the Principality—by offering income tax cuts and houses at discounts—by their huckster's approach, have pulled out more support in Wales than ever before to embrace the worst, the emptiest, the most banal values of South-East England suburbia.
The debate conducted in Wales over devolution was largely worthy of Wales. It was a battle of ideas, personally polemicised, as becomes Wales, but it was a search for a worthy identity. Although opportunists infiltrated both camps it was a genuine and passionate argument with ideational content, and a content that was in some ways spiritual.
There was and there is more common ground between those who were genuinely


committed to devolution and those who, for idealistic reasons, opposed it than exists or will ever exist between, on the one hand, radicals in the Labour Party, the Liberal Party and in Plaid Cymru and, on the other hand, the Welsh Tories who would iron out all the elan, all the distinctiveness and all the humanity which history, geography and, indeed, biology, have endowed upon Wales.
I come to bury the devolution Act, not to praise it. But I close the cemetery gates knowing that there is more, and that there must be still more understanding between the genuine mourners, of whom there may have been a few, and the genuine anti-devolutionists than can or should exist between them on the one hand and the Secretary of State on the other. The right hon. Gentleman has this afternoon danced—admittedly a little lightly—on the Act's grave, chanting, not quite audibly, the pagan songs of avarice that, if acted upon, would debauch the Principality.
Burying this Act does not mean that we have solved the problems of Wales. It should be understood by those in Wales that we radicals inside the Labour Party know that it does not mean that we have filled the vacuum within which too much of the life of our country is lived. It does not mean that we have arrested by one iota the corrosiveness of a self-interested, narcissistic form of capitalism which is spreading in Wales and which could totally destroy our especial pride of community and leave us as petty suburbanites in a provincial Britain.
Therefore, today is not a moment for lamentations, for looking backwards and for trying to stir up old hostilities. It is the time for all radicals in Wales to reunite, for if we do not do so we shall indeed have betrayed our heritage and be without identity, distinction, distinctiveness or reforming zeal. We shall then deserve the fate of petty anonymity that so evidently threatens Wales and its people.
What, then, is the response we now have before us for attempting to deal with these massive problems? It is a Select Committee. Let me make my position clear. If it were a genuine Select Committee, adequately backed, manned by people who wanted to use the inquisi-

torial powers with which it was endowed, it could be a valuable instrument.
If it remains in the present form it will however become a guard and a shield for the Department and for the Secretary of State for Wales. As has already been pointed out, the numbers on that Select Committee will be small and the majority will be Tory Members of Parliament—those left without office but who are still panting for it.
The power of patronage will remain with the Secretary of State for Wales. He will have a pliant Select Committee which will do what he wants it to do. The majority of its members—Welsh Tory MPs—would be bound to collude with the Secretary of State, not to open, up or reveal the great gaps that may exist within the Administration but rather to seal them. I cannot see the hon. Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower) acting as the battering ram for the people of Wales and coming down heavily on the bureaucrats and the Ministers who will come before the Committee. It is farcical even to imagine such a concept. What we are creating is an instrument which, because it will have a Tory majority if it remains with its present numbers, can shy off any really complex problem which is bothering Wales, and in particular bothering the Secretary of State for Wales.
What the Secretary of State has done—even though perhaps he has not done it in a Machiavellian manner—is, since he lacks innovatory spirit, slavishly to follow the idea of the general Select Committees. My right hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda has pointed out that they are inappropriate, and ineffective, in dealing with the multiple facets of administration which exist in the Welsh Office. Of course we need more people on the Select Committee but we need something else. I give this to the Secretary of State. Why should these people be appointed for the whole Parliament?
Members of other Select Committees have been appointed for a whole Parliament due to the need for continuity. For instance, in dealing with energy a Committee needs the people who know the subject and who build up a source of information on it. But the very nature of a Select Committee for Wales, if it has any meaning, is that it should be dealing with subject after subject. The very


nature of a Select Committee for Wales is that it ought to have Sub-Committees which would have powers of surveillance. We need a larger Select Committee and that Committee ought not to be elected for the lifetime of a whole Parliament.
If we concede that this is not a Machiavellian device to protect the Minister, and if the Committee is not going to be a creature—as I believe it will be—of the Secretary of State, what is necessary above everything else to make it effective is that people should be appointed for only one Session. That would enable a change of personnel and would allow the Committee, perchance, to grow a little and make some little contribution, which it cannot do at present, to resolving the vast and yawning problems of Wales. The Government, far from being able to meet those problems, will, as we know from their record and from their threats, be likely only to exacerbate them.

6.24 p.m.

Mr. Alan Williams: My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), whose speech I am sure we all enjoyed, has left me slightly disappointed, because in the course of that speech he loudly slammed the cemetery gates. I stand outside those gates, a late arrival, with my floral tribute. It is the only tribute that I have ever offered to the Wales Act, and I am feeling frustrated.
Whatever else may be said for or against the Wales Act, it did achieve one useful and major political purpose in that it focused the attention of the people of Wales on the real issues of devolution and self-government. For that alone it was a worthwhile effort. In that context, I was fascinated by, and will take every opportunity to repeat, the comments of the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley). He made it clear that, faced with overwhelming public opposition even to partial devolution, he now draws the uniquely logical conclusion that what the people of Wales want is total self-government. That is a banner which I am sure will be waved on his behalf from various political platforms during the next few years.
Now that devolution has gone, there remains the problem of how to deal with the need for democracy in nominated

bodies. I do not criticise the intention behind the proposition before us. What I criticise is the lack of preparation and thought before the proposition was brought forward. We add confusion—and I understand the difficulties in which the right hon. Gentleman found himself—by defining what is meant by "associated public bodies". At this stage I am far from clear, as I am sure many of my hon. Friends are, about the remit of this Committee. We look, with justifiable optimism, for a lucid explanation and definition of this from the Under-Secretary of State when he replies to the debate.
It has been made clear that the governing party intends to take a majority of the seats on this Committee. That will leave the Government with only six qualifying Back Benchers because of ministerial commitments and because of the understandable exclusion of the PPS. Therefore, on the Government side, all six Back Benchers who are eligible will be represented. On the Opposition side, of 21 Labour Members—virtually double the number of Conservative MPs—we are to have possibly only four representatives. The vast majority of Welsh Labour Members will not have access to the information that will be available to all the Conservative Members.
If the Government persist in confining the Committee to a mere 11 members, is it envisaged that the evidence and documentation made available to the few Committee members from the Labour side will be made available to Welsh Members generally? Even if we took four places—and that would leave us still grossly under-represented as the majority party in Wales—that would create grave genuine difficulties for both the minority parties, in that one or other of them would be excluded from the Committee, and have no opportunity of participating in it, for the full life of a Parliament.

Sir Anthony Meyer: They do not want it.

Mr. Williams: Experience has shown that once these organisations are in existence such groups do want to be represented and to participate.
With regard to the work load, I do not think that the Committee is a practical proposition in the form in which the right hon. Gentleman has put it forward. As


my right hon. Friend indicated, this is a multi-functional Department. A great many disciplines and specialisms are involved. If we are to have meaningful, regular scrutiny of all the sectors of government covered by the Welsh Office we need a Sub-Committee structure, but that would put an impossible time requirement on the members of the Committee. In any case, it would be inefficient because it would mean that even if we had a Sub-Committee there would be no facility for drawing on the specialisms to be found on the Labour Back Benches. That would be a more relevant way of dealing with the Sub-Committees, and that is why we put forward the idea of a larger basic Committee.
What is the right hon. Gentleman's view on publicity and the media? In the last Session of Parliament we noted, for example, that the Public Accounts Committee allowed radio and television access to certain of its meetings. Is it envisaged, particularly if this Select Committee is to meet in Wales, that the media should have access to it? Will this be a decision for the Committee itself? Will that be something within its power? That may well be an interesting prospect for the Welsh media.
Further, the proposition before us is ill considered and ill defined because the normal processes have been ignored. There has not been consultation on what is essentially a procedural issue, and I am amazed that no attempt was made at least to have consultation through the normal channels with my right hon. and hon. Friends before the proposition was brought forward. Even better, of course, would have been the proposition put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones), to have a discussion on the matter in the Welsh Grand Committee, or a discussion such as we have now, but with time then for contemplation.
Therefore, even at this late stage I ask the Minister to consider not pressing the decision on the Select Committee here this evening but to take away the arguments that have been put to him, to have consultations with the Opposition parties over the next fortnight, and then to consider a modified proposiion that might have all-party support.

6.31 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Wyn Roberts): My task at the end of this debate is to concentrate the mind of the House on the motions and the amendment before us and to deal with as many of the points raised as I can within the time left to me. I must say that I wish that some hon. Members who have raised points today had been here yesterday, when so many of their questions were covered in our debate on the report of the Procedure Committee and the establishment of the Select Committees, on which the House reached a decision in the early hours of the morning.
This is the second debate relating to Wales that we have had on the Floor of the House since the opening of Parliament seven weeks ago, and there are more debates to come in the Welsh Grand Committee, so I do not think that anyone can say that Wales has been neglected in Westminster.
The order repealing the Wales Act marks, as many hon. Members have said, the end of the road down which the previous Government tried to lead the Welsh people. Four out of five of those who voted in the referendum saw the dead-end ahead and voted "No". Even the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) must have seen something large, dark and minatory looming in the empty halls where he should have addressed mass meetings in the course of his campaign. Eventually, after the votes had been counted and the result declared, he recognised the elephant—as my hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Best) put it—on his own doorstep, and, to be fair to him, he had the courage to admit the error of his ways.
Tonight, we shall relieve Opposition Members of their misery and make the elephant disappear. No magic wand is required—just a two-line Whip on the Government side and a one-line Whip on theirs. I gather that the Plaid Cymru Members may vote against repeal of the Act. If they do—they have a three-line Whip—it will be proof that they do not respect a 4 to 1 majority in the referendum, let alone the 40 per cent. requirement under section 80 of the Act. They are democrats, I suspect, only when it


suits them and only when they are on the winning side.
I turn now to the question of the Select Committee. During the referendum campaign, my right hon. and hon. Friends learned that the people of Wales were receptive to ideas about improvement in the way they were governed. I do not think that my right hon. Friend will castigate me unduly if I reveal that on the morrow of the referendum result I wrote to him saying that, when we formed the Government, we must have more frequent meetings of the Welsh Grand Committee to discuss the annual reports of certain nominated bodies, among other matters, and that we must have a Select Committee on Welsh affairs.
The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), who referred to the late Ness Edwards, was quite right in this context. There is nothing new in the idea. What was new, I think, was the fact that we had put forward the idea during the referendum campaign and my right hon. Friend, whose mind is ever open to fresh ideas on the governance of the Principality, saw to it that we were committed to these developments in our manifesto.
We were, of course, making rods for our own back—not the shield, I assure him, that the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) thinks we have created—but we would rather make rods for our own back than have the people of Wales suffer from any sense of constitutional grievance. I am glad of the welcome, however cautious, given to our proposal by the right hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones)—whom we congratulate on his recent honour—and the welcome given by other hon. Members.
Much has been made of the point that there has been no consultation. I am not aware that there was any approach to us requiring consultation on the matter of the Select Committee, for it was specifically mentioned in our manifesto.
The size of the Select Committee has been very much a key issue. Our motion proposes a membership of 11, and the Opposition propose by their amendment a membership of 36. In our opinion, the latter figure would be far too large. The Procedure Committee recommended a norm of 10 members, on the ground that

Select Committees should be small enough to operate as single cohesive investigative units. We agree with that argument.

Dr. Roger Thomas: rose—

Mr. Roberts: No, I cannot give way. I am pressed for time. We consider that 11 rather than 10 is the right number for the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, as giving rather more scope for the representation of minority parties, if the Committee of Selection should so decide.
Last night, or rather early this morning, the House approved the establishment of 12 departmental Select Committees, ranging in size of membership from nine to 11. Four major Departments of State—the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Home Office, the Treasury and the combined Departments of Industry and Trade—have 11-member Committees. Four others have 10-member Committees. Yet another quartet—Departments, I should add, as important as Employment, Education and Science, Agriculture and Health and Social Security—have nine-member Committees.
Standing Order No. 75 lays down that
No select committee shall, without leave of the House, consist of more than fifteen Members, and such leave shall not be moved for without notice.
Only the Expenditure Committee has more than 15 members. I do not think that precedent can be called in aid by those who argue for more than 11 members on the proposed Select Committee on Welsh Affairs. Neither can the report of the Procedure Committee be called in aid.
A membership of 36, as proposed in the amendment, would reduce the availability of Members for other Committees and general responsibilities in the House. It would lead to pressure for a host of Sub-Committees rather than the one which the Opposition are demanding, and a tremendous increase in general support staff.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: rose—

Mr. Roberts: I cannot give way. Are we to understand that what is being suggested is that the Welsh Grand Committee should be given the powers of the Select Committee?

Mr. Thomas: rose—

Mr. Wigley: Give way.

Mr. Roberts: I urge hon. Members to think again about that proposition. The two Committees are very different, as my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower) pointed out.

I must now draw to a close, and I do so very simply by calling on my right hon. and hon. Friends to support our motions and to defeat the amendment to the second of them, put down by the Opposition.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 191, Noes 8.

Division no.28]
AYES
[6.40 p.m.


Aitken, Jonathan
Greenway, Harry
Page, Rt Hon R Graham (Crosby)


Alexander, Richard
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Parris, Matthew


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Grist, Ian
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Ancram, Michael
Grylls, Michael
Patten, John (Oxford)


Arnold, Tom
Gummer, John Selwyn
Percival, Sir Ian


Aspinwall, Jack
Hampson, Dr Keith
Pollock, Alexander


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Hannam, John
Porter, George


Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
Hawkins, Paul
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Hawksley, Warren
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Bendall, Vivian
Heddle, John
Proctor, K. Harvey


Berry, Hon Anthony
Henderson, Barry
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Best, Keith
Hicks, Robert
Raison, Timothy


Bevan, David Gilroy
Higgins, Terence L.
Rathbone, Jim


Biggs-Davison, John
Hill, James
Rhodes James, Robert


Blackburn, John
Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Rhys Williams, sir Brandon


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hooson, Tom
Rifkind, Malcolm


Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Bright, Graham
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Rost, Peter


Brinton, Timothy
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Brittan, Leon
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Brooke, Hon Peter
King, Rt Hon Tom
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'thorpe)
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Knox, David
Shersby, Michael


Budgen, Nick
Lang, Ian
Silvester, Fred


Bulmer, Esmond
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Sims, Roger


Butcher, John
Lawrence, Ivan
Skeet, T. H. H.


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Lee, John
Skinner, Dennis


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Le Marchant, Spencer
Speller, Tony


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Sproat, Iain


Chapman, Sydney
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Squire, Robin


Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
McCrindle, Robert
Stanbrook, Ivor


Clark, William (Croydon South)
Mackay, John (Argyll)
Steen, Anthony


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Stevens, Martin


Cockeram, Eric
McQuarrie, Albert
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Colvin, Michael
Major, John
Stradling Thomas, J.


Cope, John
Marland, Paul
Temple-Morris, Peter


Corrie, John
Marlow, Antony
Thompson, Donald


Cranborne, Viscount
Marten, Neil (Banbury)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Critchley, Julian
Mather, Carol
Thornton, George


Cryer, Bob
Maude, Rt Hon Angus
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Dorrell, Stephen
Mawby, Ray
Trippier, David


Dover, Denshore
Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Viggers, Peter


Dunlop, John
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Waddington, David


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Mellor, David
Wakeham, John


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Waldegrave, Hon William


Elliott, Sir William
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove &amp; Redditch)
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Fairgrieve, Russell
Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Wall, Patrick


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Waller, Gary


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Moate, Roger
Ward, John


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Molyneaux, James
Watson, John


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Montgomery, Fergus
Wells, P. Bowen (Hert'rd &amp; Stev'nage)


Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)
Morgan, Geraint
Wheeler, John


Fookes, Miss Janet
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Forman, Nigel
Mudd, David
Wickenden, Keith


Fox, Marcus
Murphy, Christopher
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Myles, David
Winterton, Nicholas


Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)
Needham, Richard
Wolfson, Mark


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Nelson, Anthony
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Neubert, Michael



Gorst, John
Newton, Tony
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Gow, Ian
Normanton, Tom
Mr. John MacGregor and


Gower, Sir Raymond
Onslow, Cranley
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.




NOES


Alton, David
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Beith, A. J.
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)


Freud, Clement



Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Steel, Rt Hon David
Mr. Geraint Howells and


Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)
Mr. Dafydd Wigley

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved
That the draft Wales Act 1978 (Repeal) Order 1979, which was laid before this House on 22nd March 1979 in the last Parliament, be approved.

SELECT COMMITTEE ON WELSH AFFAIRS

Motion made, and Question put,

That

(1) A Select committee shall be appointed, to be called the Committee on Welsh Affairs, to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of the Welsh Office and associated public bodies; and the committee shall consist of a maximum of eleven members, of whom the quorum shall be three.
(2) The Committee shall have power—

(a) to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment

of the House, to adjourn from place to place, and to report from time to time; and

(b) to appoint persons with technical knowledge either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the committee's order of reference.

(3) Unless the House otherwise orders, all Members nominated to the committee appointed under this Order shall continue to be members of the committee for the remainder of the Parliament.

That this Order be a Standing Order of the House—[Mr. Cope.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): Is the amendment moved?

Mr. Alec Jones: Not moved, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

The House divided: Ayes 187, Noes 10.

Division No.29]
AYES
[6.51 p.m.


Alexander, Richard
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Lang, Ian


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Ancram, Michael
Elliott, Sir William
Lawrence, Ivan


Arnold, Tom
English, Michael
Lee, John


Aspinwall, Jack
Fairgrieve, Russell
Le Marchant, Spencer


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Faith, Mrs Sheila
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Bendall, Vivian
Fisher, Sir Nigel
McCrindle, Robert


Berry, Hon Anthony
Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)
MacGregor, John


Best, Keith
Fookes, Miss Janet
Mackay, John (Argyll)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Forman, Nigel
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)


Biggs-Davison, John
Fox, Marcus
McQuarrie, Albert


Blackburn, John
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Major, John


Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)
Marland, Paul


Braine, Sir Bernard
Garel-Jones, Tristan
Marlow, Antony


Bright, Graham
Glyn, Dr Alan
Marten, Neil (Banbury)


Brinton, Timothy
Gorst, John
Mather, Carol


Brittan, Leon




Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Gow, Ian
Maude, Rt Hon Angus


Brooke, Hon Peter
Gower, Sir Raymond
Mawby, Ray


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'thorpe)
Greenway, Harry
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Budgen, Nick
Grist, Ian
Mellor, David


Bulmer, Esmond
Grylls, Michael
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Butcher, John
Gummer, John Selwyn
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove &amp; Redditch)


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Hannam, John
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Hawkins, Paul
Mills, Peter (West Devon)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hawksley, Warren
Moate, Roger


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Heddle, John
Montgomery, Fergus


Chapman, Sydney
Henderson, Barry
Morgan, Geraint


Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Hicks, Robert
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)


Clark, William (Croydon South)
Higgins, Terence L.
Mudd, David


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hill, James
Murphy, Christopher


Cockeram, Eric
Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Myles, David


Colvin, Michael
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Needham, Richard


Cope, John
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Nelson, Anthony


Corrie, John
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Neubert, Michael


Cranborne, Viscount
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Newton, Tony


Critchley, Julian
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Normanton, Tom


Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Onslow, Cranley


Dorrell, Stephen
King, Rt Hon Tom
Page, Rt Hon R Graham (Crosby)


Dover, Denshore
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Parris, Matthew


Dunlop, John
Knox, David
Patten, Christopher (Bath)




Patten, John (Oxford)
Shersby, Michael
Waddington, David


Pawsey, James
Silvester, Fred
Wakeham, John


Percival, Sir Ian
Sims, Roger
Waldegrave, Hon William


Pollock, Alexander
Skeet, T. H. H.
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Porter, George
Speller, Tony
Wall, Patrick


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)
Waller, Gary


Proctor, K. Harvey
Sproat, Iain
Ward, John


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Squire, Robin
Watson, John


Raison, Timothy
Stanbrook, Ivor
Wells, P. Bowen (Hert'rd&amp;Stev'nage)


Rathbone, Tim
Steen, Anthony
Wheeler, John


Rhodes James, Robert
Stevens, Martin
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Wickenden, Keith


Rifkind, Malcolm
Stradling Thomas, J.
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)


Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Temple-Morris, Peter
Winterton, Nicholas


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Thompson, Donald
Wolfson, Mark


Rost, peter
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Thornton, George



Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Townend, John (Bridlington)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Trippier, David
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton and


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Viggers, Peter
Mr. Robert Boscawen.


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)






NOES


Beith, A. J.
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)


Cryer, Bob
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Freud, Clement
Wigley, Dafydd


Grimond, Rt Hon J.



Ross, Stephen (Isle of wight)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


skinner, Dennis
Mr. Geraint Howells and


Steel, Rt Hon David
Mr. Gordon Wilson.

Question accordingly agreed to.

SELECT COMMITTEE ON WELSH AFFAIRS (COMMITTEE OF SELECTION)

Ordered,
That no Motion shall be made for the nomination of Members to serve on the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, or for their discharge, unless;

(a) notice of the Motion has been given at least two sitting days previously, and
(b) the Motion is made on behalf of the Committee of Selection by the Chairman or by another Member of that Committee—[Mr. Cope.]

IRON CASTING INDUSTRY (RESEARCH LEVY)

Resolved,
That the draft Iron Casting Industry (Scientific Research Levy) (Amendment) Order 1979, which was laid before this House on 16 May, be approved.—[Mr. Michael Marshall.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS (JOINT COMMITTEE)

Ordered,
That so much of the Lords Message of 14 June as relates to a Joint Committee of both Houses to scrutinise delegated legislation be now considered.—[Mr. Cope.]

Lords Message considered accordingly.

Ordered,
That a Select Committee be appointed to join with a Committee appointed by the Lords to consider:

(A) every instrument which is laid before each House of Parliament and upon which proceedings may be or might have been taken in either House of Parliament, in pursuance of an Act of Parliament; being

(a) a statutory instrument, or a draft statutory instrument;
(b) a scheme, or an amendment of a scheme, or a draft thereof, requiring approval by statutory instrument;
(c) any other instrument (whether or not in draft), where the proceedings in pursuance of an Act of Parliament are proceedings by way of an affirmative resolution; or
(d) an order subject to special parliamentary procedure but excluding any order in Council or draft order in Council made or proposed to be made under paragraph 1 of schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974;

(B) every general statutory instrument not within the foregoing classes, and not required to be laid before or to be subject to proceedings in this House only, but not including Measures under the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919 and instruments made under such Measures:

with a view to determining whether the special attention of the House should be drawn to it on any of the following grounds—

(i) that it imposes a charge on the public revenues or contains provisions requiring payments to be made to the Exchequer or any Government department or to any local or public authority in consideration of any licence or consent or of any services to be rendered, or prescribes the amount of any such charge or payment;
(ii) that it is made in pursuance of any enactment containing specific provisions excluding it from challenge in the courts, either at all times or after the expiration of a specific period;


(iii) that it purports to have retrospective effect where the parent Statute confers no express authority so to provide;
(iv) that there appears to have been unjustifiable delays in the publication or in the laying of it before Parliament;
(v) that there appears to have been unjustifiable delay in sending a notification under the proviso to subsection (1) of section four of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946, where an Instrument has come into operation before it has been laid before Parliament;
(vi) that there appears to be a doubt whether it is intra vires or that it appears to make some unusual or unexpected use of the powers conferred by the Statute under which it is made;
(vii) that for any special reason its form or purport call for elucidation;
(viii) that its drafting appears to be defective; or

on any other ground which does not impinge on its merits or on the policy behind it; and to report their decision with the reasons thereof in any particular case.

Ordered,
That Two be the quorum of the Committee.

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to appoint one or more Sub-Committees severally to join with any Sub-Committee or Sub-Committees appointed by the Committee appointed by the Lords; and to refer to such Sub-Committee or Sub-Committees any of the matters referred to the Committee.

Ordered,
That the Committee and any Sub-Committee appointed by them shall have the assistance of the Counsel to Mr. Speaker and, if their Lordships think fit, of the Counsel to the Lord Chairman of Committees.

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to sit notwithstanding any Adjournment of the House and to report from time to time, and that any Sub-Committee appointed by them have power to sit notwithstanding any Adjournment of the House.

Ordered,
That the Committee and any Sub-Committee appointed by them have power to require any Government department concerned to submit a Memorandum explaining any instrument which may be under their consideration or to depute a representative to appear before them as a Witness for the purpose of explaining any such instrument.

Ordered,
That the Committee and any Sub-Committee appointed by them have power to take evidence, written or oral from Her Majesty's Stationery Office, relating to the printing and publication of any instrument.

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to report to the House from time to time any Memo-

random submitted to them or other evidence taken before them or any Sub-Committee appointed by them from any Government department in explanation of any instruments.

Ordered,
That it be an Instruction to the Committee that before reporting that the special attention of the House be drawn to any instrument the Committee do afford to any Government department concerned therewith an opportunity of furnishing orally or in writing to them or to any Sub-Committee appointed by them such explanations as the department think fit.

Ordered,
That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they do consider any instrument which is directed by Act of Parliament to be laid before and to be subject to proceedings in this House only, being—

(a) statutory instruments, or drafts at statutory instruments;
(b) schemes, or amendments of schemes or drafts thereof, requiring approval by statutory instrument; or
(c) any other instrument (whether or not in draft), where the proceedings in pursuance of an Act of Parliament ate proceedings by way of an affirmative resolution;

and that they have power to draw such instruments to the special attention of the House on any of the grounds on which the Joint Committee are empowered so to draw the special attention of the House: and that in considering any such instrument the Committee do not join with the Committee appointed by the Lords.

Ordered,
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House until the end of this Parliament.—[Mr. Cope.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS (JOINT COMMITTEE)

Ordered,
That Mr. Nicholas Baker, Mr. Andrew Bennett, Mr. Bob Cryer, Mr. Allen McKay, Mr. R. Graham Page, Mr. Barry Porter and Mr. Delwyn Williams be Members of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

Ordered,
That the Members of the Committee nominated this day shall continue to be Members of the Committee for the remainder of this Parliament.

Ordered,
That this Order be a Standing Order of the House—[Mr. Cope.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them with such of the said Orders as are necessary to be communicated to their Lordships.

BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): Before we debate the Bill, I point out that Mr. Speaker has not selected the Instruction.

7 p.m.

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This general purpose Bill is one of a long series of such measures which have been introduced since the board was constituted in its present form in 1962. With the leave of the House, I shall ask for the right of reply to deal with any matters which are raised by hon. Members during the debate. I understand that it is the custom—I seek your ruling here, Mr. Deputy Speaker—that matters of a general nature relating to the railway system can also be raised during our debate.
The Bill began its life in January 1979 and, as a result of serious reservations held by outside bodies and a number of hon. Members—and the fact that we have had a general election—the Bill is obviously very late in its timetable. However, the matters which are covered in the Bill are extremely important to the successful operation of British Rail. It is very much hoped, therefore, that the Bill will be given a Second Reading so that many of these urgent and important matters can be dealt with speedily.
The hon. Members for Goole (Dr. Marshall), Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) and Manchester, Moss Side (Mr. Morton) have taken the proper parliamentary steps in the past to block the Bill in earlier stages, and I shall in a moment try to deal with some of the matters which I know have been concerning them. However, the Bill is designed to provide structural changes, of a works type and in other ways to make for a more efficient rail system.
Perhaps there has never been a moment in our post-war history when the need for a really efficient rail system was greater than it is now. We are facing a grave new energy crisis. To all of us who watch freight on the roads it is something of a disappointment that we

cannot utilise our existing railway system to a greater extent than we do at the present time. Indeed, I should like to feel that moneys can be set aside at some future point for further electrification of the railway system, since this will enable a far more sensible and wise use of energy to be made. In my own constituency, where this has been done, it has led to greater efficiency, better time-keeping and so on.
Before coming to the general terms of the Bill, I should like to plead that we should as soon as possible look again at the possibility of a Channel tunnel, because we are now talking in an international context in energy terms, and with Britain in the Common Market we should also be thinking of transportation in an international context.
The Bill is in six separate parts. Hon. Members have already received an explanatory note about the main provisions of the Bill. Part I deals essentially with incorporation, setting out a method of incorporating relevant previous legislation as it affects the Bill. It also seeks to amend the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 so that the Board cannot enter on or take possession of land without giving not less than three months' notice to the owner, lessee or occupier. Part I is, I believe, fairly non-contentious.
It is when we get to part II that we begin to run into what has proved so far to be the serious opposition. It is designed to give the Board powers to undertake certain works and at the same time to detail what those works may be. Not surprisingly, in a situation of this type, many individual interests are affected.
Perhaps the most significant sources of conflict in this early part of the works programme are works Nos. 1 and 2, which deal with the problems relating to Manchester. I see several hon. Members from that part of the country who—if they are fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker—will no doubt seek to promote their own particular causes. But in works Nos. 1 and 2 it is the intention to provide a better transport system in Manchester than exists.
I recognise, as does the Board, that the hopes—which have been quite rightly based upon what happened in 1972—and the desire for the Piccadilly-Victoria link, have to some extent gone to one side.


Nevertheless, the proposals in the Bill to provide a short connecting line between the Salford station and a point near to the Deansgate station, go some way towards meeting a serious problem. The line will provide a rail surface link from both the north and south of central Manchester and, as is stated in the promoters' statement:
Works Nos. 1 and 2 are new railways which will provide a connection between existing railways, and implement a plan for improvement by the Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive of surban passenger services, in Greater Manchester.
I recognise that this is essentially, to those who would rather see something bolder, half a loaf, but it may be that half a loaf is better than no bread. I am not in any way in those words offering an ultimatum, but I am suggesting that there is a positive proposal here. Perhaps, when hon. Members have made their comments upon it I might comment further, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I receive the permission of the House to reply. But I want to make very clear that a positive proposal exists which should be of material benefit to Manchester.
In clause 7, of the Bill we come to another serious objection. It is the objection which has been raised by the hon. Member for Goole relating to the closure of the England Lane crossing at Knottingley. The Bill deals at some length with alterations to crossings and inevitably it creates problems in certain areas. I want to make clear that crossings are never closed without the most careful consultation, and also that substantial savings can be made as a result of these changes.
With regard to the hon. Gentleman's complaint about England Lane, he will know that the Board has given an undertaking that, with leave, it will withdraw this part of the Bill in Committee. But his complaint about England Lane at Knottingley and that section of track relates to part of the merry-go-round train system to the Selby coalfield. To some extent the problem has been heightened by the decision to go ahead with the Drax power station. I do not in any sense object to that. As a strong believer in the coal industry I am delighted to see it built.
The fact is that the Selby coalfield can supply both of the Drax stations when they are completed, and can also supply Ferrybridge and Eggborough. At present it is designed and planned that the coal shall be taken from a drift-head at Gascoigne Wood and then proceed west on a railway track which passes those other power stations to which I have referred, ending up at Drax. It is also true that Drax A and Drax B could take the whole production from the Selby field, which will be fully operational by 1987. However, the Central Electricity Generating Board wants the freedom to switch coal from one station to another, and does not want to be committed to sending the coal on a new piece of track direct to the Drax power complex. The reversal of direction would not be sensible unless 90 per cent. of the coal went to that station, and therefore the British Rail Board does not regard this as a viable alternative, and the CEGB will not give any assurance to this effect. Were the Drax A and B power stations supplied from that source, something like 56 trains a day would be needed, quite apart from anything else in the way of rail traffic. My concern for the case that the hon. Member has promoted is that if the Board goes ahead and withdraws the closure of England Lane, we are still faced with crossing a piece of track which will have a large amount of coal traffic on it.
That brings me to the alternative—namely the building of a bridge, about which the hon. Member has had discussions. Because there is already a substantial plan to improve the roads in the area—and the particular plan has already received local approval—the Board would not be prepared to sponsor the building of such a bridge. Nevertheless I am advised that if the hon. Gentleman continues with his proposal, and obtains the support of various bodies—local authorities and others—the Board would be prepared to be represented at any discussions that he might initiate.
I might add that since there is a substantial traffic improvement scheme already under way at Headlands Lane and Spawd Bone Lane, and for the reasons that I have given about the CEGB's determination to have freedom in switching coal and in fuelling the power


stations from other parts of the country if necessary, the proposal that the hon. Gentleman put forward for a new piece of track for the fuel to travel in the opposite direction would not be acceptable. One must recognise that the planning of the Gascoigne Wood sidings and the construction of them has already begun. I would be happy to reply to any other points that the hon. Member cares to raise but in general that is the case that the Board has put forward.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Bassetlaw on his elevation to the Opposition Front Bench. He raises the question, in clause 12, of another crossing. Good progress is taking place in the negotiations with the local authority on the matter of the Walkeringham station level crossing. I recognise that the parish council has a strong view on this matter, and it may be that if the hon. Member catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, I shall want to comment further on this matter. The Board is extremely anxious on all these matters to try to find common ground. This is not just an attempt by the Board to close off crossings willy-nilly. It is an attempt to produce sensible cost savings, and a more efficient system at the same time.
Part III of the Bill deals mainly with compulsory purchase and provides the powers to acquire the land in works Nos. 1 to 7 which we have been discussing. It also deals with the powers for the purchases in schedule 2, and hon. Members will find the purposes of schedule 2 in the explanatory note.
Part IV is a major part on its own, dealing with Fishguard harbour. Here again, the delay in getting the Bill through Parliament has led to a serious problem. Contracts are ready to be let, and since Fishguard harbour requires a lot of work to be carried out on it, it is a matter of some urgency that the Board presses ahead. The works involved are to the extention of the quay wall, some reclamation of the sea bed, the acquisition of some small parcels of land for the diversion of a footpath and the raising and extending of at least one footbridge. This whole area of Fishguard harbour is not controversial but it is extremely important to the Board's operations.
Part V deals with the protective provisions and is self-explanatory. Part VI

deals with miscellaneous provisions and I shall be happy to comment on any of these if there are any issues particularly worrying hon. Members.
We have a general purposes Bill which, for the most part is non-contentious. It is important and urgent. While I recognise that some of the problems to which I have referred will not blow away just because meetings take place, I hope that hon. Members will bear with the Board in its desire to try to find accommodation for those who have problems which so far have not been resolved.
We have had some delay as a result of the general election, but it has never been more important to get a good railway system. In fact, we have a good railway system in this country. Here we are talking about matters such as level crossings, with which European countries would never bother. The British Railways Board goes to enormous trouble to ensure the safety, not only of its passengers but of all the people who are in any way involved in the lands which it owns. Therefore, for this reason these detailed matters are brought before the House of Commons for deliberation and I very much hope they will enjoy the support of the House.

7.18 p.m.

Mr. George Morton: I thank the hon. Member for the New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) for his explanation of the Bill. My objection is limited to the proposal affecting Manchester—works Nos. 1 and 2 under clause 5. I regret that the obstruction on this aspect has led to delay in other works.
The objection to the proposal is not that it is bad but that it fails to do the job that is urgently required for the centre of Manchester. The conurbation of Manchester inherited from the nineteenth century a railway system that has lines fanning out from two main stations, north and south of the city centre, with no linkage between them. The lack of a north-south rail link limits the use that can be made of the suburban rail system for passengers and has inhibited the development of the commercial life of the city.
The hon. Member for New Forest referred to the Pic-Vic tunnel, which was the earlier proposal that came out of a long transportation study in the years 1964 to 1972. That study recommended the principles that have been followed in


directing the highway and public transport investment system in Greater Manchester. Basically, the system provides for radial services on the railways to take people to the regional centre, and for circumferential road systems to provide for other services. Road investment has, to some extent, taken place. The circumferential motorway system takes in three-quarters of the central area. It is the lack of a radial system that is causing problems in the regional centre.
To make most use of the rail system the SELNEC study proposed the Pic-Vic tunnel linking the rail systems out of Piccadilly station on the south side with the rail system out of Victoria on the north side, with stations in the central area, thus providing direct access from the suburban areas into the city centre. That was authorised by the Manchester Central Area Railway Act 1972. The proposal was supported by the local authorities, including the Greater Manchester council, up to the change of political control of the Greater Manchester county council in 1977, since when the proposal for a tunnel has been abandoned.
In place of the Pic-Vic proposal, this railway line in the Bill has been substituted. It is commonly known as the Castlefield curve. It will link the north and south systems but will be well to the west of the city centre. It will fail to provide the access that is needed to the commercial centre. There will be an opportunity for people to travel from stations on the north side to stations in the south, but there will be no possibility for the majority of those who require good access into the city centre to achieve that. People may need to go from Stockport to Bury, but many more want to go from Stockport or from Bury to the city centre. This proposal will not help them.
The usefulness of this project is limited by the capacity of the existing viaduct west of Piccadilly station. This carries local services from Altrincham through to Stockport and Crewe, as well as longer distance services to Chester and Liverpool. The viaduct could not cope with all this traffic both to the north and to the west. It is likely that if a north-south service is provided, the services to the west will be reduced.
Manchester has served as an important commercial centre for the region, and it is

a centre of employment for inner city residents. In comparison with other cities, Manchester has lacked transportation investment. This has contributed to a dicline of the regional centre in relation to surrounding towns. Employment in manufacturing and service industries in the city centre has fallen, and retail trade in the city centre has dropped while other centres round about it have grown, having gained from the improved road connections. We need the means to improve accessibility to the regional centre, but we need to examine ways others than the Castlefield curve. Therefore, we have asked for this matter to be reconsidered.
Because we feel that studies have not been undertaken, we are asking that this matter should be taken back for further consideration. We are not necessarily saying that this proposal is not wise in its own right, but we are saying that unless we have better access to the city centre we shall be failing that area, that the drop in its usefulness will continue and that the region will suffer.

7.24 p.m.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: I agree with the hon. Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) that there is an urgent need for expansion of railway services. That need exists in the Manchester city centre—the inner city area. I believe that expansion should take place not only in surface rail services but in the provision of underground rail services, too.
I support the detailed analysis of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Moss Side (Mr. Morton) in opposing the provisions for works Nos. 1 and 2, set out in clause 5. I was grateful to my hon. Friend for putting the matter in historical perspective. He was right to say that Manchester has not enjoyed the transportation investment that it has a right to expect. It has seen areas such as Tyne and Wear, London and Liverpool attract appreciable Government financial support in improving their transportation systems. It is now Manchester's turn to be considered for greater national financial support to improve transportation in the city centre.
We do not intend to embarrass British Rail by opposing the proposal for works Nos. 1 and 2, because we are not opposed to progress as such. Equally, we do not


oppose the Castlefield curve, but we believe that that curve is only one part of a larger and better package that should be provided. We see this as only one part of a larger scheme designed to serve the community in Manchester in order to achieve greater penetration of the Manchester commercial, business and shopping centre.
My hon. Friend the Member for Moss Side explained that the Castlefield curve will provide a surface rail link between the north and south of the city. I believe that it will do little to assist the convenience of those who work and shop in the centre. The figures that I have seen indicate that the provision of the Castle-field curve will involve public expenditure of between £7 million and £10 million. That expenditure should not have been proposed without detailed study of alternative systems of public transportation to serve the city centre. If we proceed with this public expenditure in building the Castlefield curve, we could pre-empt for ever a direct or intermediate Underground system for the city centre in Manchester which would provide the city centre penetration to which I referred.
To embark on the Castlefield curve may inhibit any possibility of ever embarking on the underground tunnel which is envisaged as the first stage of the Pic-Vic scheme.

Mr. Peter Snape: Will my right hon. Friend put the other side of the equation? If the proposals for the Castlefield curve are dropped, will that bring the Pic-Vic tunnel any closer?

Mr. Morris: I would not make any such suggestion. The point that I am seeking to establish is that the Castlefield curve is only one part of the city centre transportation system. We want to see a transportation system that projects a penetration to the business, commercial and shopping area of Manchester.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) appears to suggest that if the proposal for establishing the Castlefield curve is introduced it will further the introduction of the Pic-Vic scheme. I should like to see a detailed study of all the alternative schemes for serving the city centre. That is all that

the instruction which I was associated with sought to bring about.
I ask the sponsor of the Bill to consider withdrawing the No. 1 and No. 2 works until such time as the detailed alternative studies have been undertaken. The situation is unusual. I understand that British Railways are eager to proceed with the Bill even if that means jettisoning the proposal for the Castlefield curve. The strange feature of the Bill is the role played by the Greater Manchester council. It has demonstrated what I can only describe as a staggering arrogance by allowing British Rail to proceed with the proposal without the detailed study of alternative service and underground transportation systems. Such alternative systems could provide Manchester with the facilities and penetration that is essential to its future success as a business, commercial and shopping centre.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is amazing that the Greater Manchester council has not taken the trouble to get in touch with hon. Members who represent that area in order that their views could be expressed through them?

Mr. Morris: I agree entirely. That is a grave omission on the part of the Greater Manchester council.
I want to pose a number of questions to the hon. Member for New Forest who is sponsoring the Bill on behalf of the British Railways Board. At the same time as withdrawing the proposal for the No. 1 and No. 2 works, will he assure the House that such a withdrawal will not inhibit legislation being brought back next year by the British Railways Board for the consideration of the House? Will he encourage British Railways to use its best endeavours to bring together the Greater Manchester council and the Manchester City council to consider further their attitudes to the proposal?
I can understand that the contention that exists between the differing authorities is a matter of embarrassment to the British Railways Board. However, it is possible for the two authorities to arrive at an accommodation, and I hope that the Board will use its best endeavours to bring that about.

7.35 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Marks: I shall refer to Greater Manchester, but first I should like to draw the attention of the House to clause 13, on foothpaths. Because British Rail is a statutory body and introduces Private Bills of this nature, many of the normal regulations about footpaths and their closure are not effective. However, some amenity organisations are worried about the Bill even though, to a great extent, it is a continuation of the existing Acts.
Many footpaths and bridges which exist on railway property are nineteenth century alternatives to what were footpaths at that time. When there is a disagreement with British Rail on the matter maps dating from 1820 and 1840 have to be referred to, and that presents difficulties. Before footpaths are closed, there should be consultations with the local authorities and amenity organisations. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will consult his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment on the matter.
With regard to the Castlefield curve, it was only three years ago that the British Railways Board, the Greater Manchester council and the city council were enthusiastic about the idea of the Pic-Vic tunnel. On the balance, the cost benefit analysis in the Department was against the idea, but it should be re-examined in view of the shortage of oil. Whether the analysis still applies is in doubt.
The other reason that the Department gave against going ahead with the Pic-Vic tunnel was that enormous sums had already been allotted to Merseyside, London, and Tyne and Wear. It was felt that Pic-Vic could be started when the other schemes had neared completion—as indeed, they have. There is no such enthusiasm among the three bodies over the Castlefield curve. It was suggested by the Greater Manchester council to British Rail that the scheme should be included in a Bill so that the tunnel could be included in its transport policy statement. I believe that British Rail was under the false impression that there had been consultations with the district authorities. British Rail may feel that the Castlefield curve will help to solve the long-standing problem of the like between Stockport

and Victoria station in Manchester. However, there is such a link. It is possible to change at Stalybridge and Guide Bridge to make the link.
The scheme does nothing to solve the problem of the inner city. I am not referring to the poorer parts of the city only, although they are so much our concern when dealing with special inner city problems. I believe that the regional centre of Manchester will decline if proper transport facilites, either by road or by rail, are not provided. Because of the long delay on the Pic-Vic tunnel, Manchester has been held back on road plans. Therefore, the city has been deprived of new schemes in both forms of transport. I hope that Manchester will not follow Birmingham's example on road transport, but Birmingham, Newcastle and Leeds, with their pedestrian precincts, received vast allocations for their transport plans.
Can the hon. Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) now give us an assurance that he will withdraw the two parts of clause 5 that are the subject of contention so that consultations can take place between the county council, the district councils, British Rail and the Ministry of Transport?

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: I can give an assurance that in Committee leave will be sought to withdraw that part of works 1 and 2 which is causing a great deal of unhappiness, but I must make clear that we cannot make that conditional upon the completion of any studies
As the right hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Morris) said, another opportunity could be found to meet the points that hon. Members have been making, but this opportunity would cease with the withdrawal of that part of the Bill. It will, however, leave room for hon. Members and local authorities to have further discussions, and it may be that when the matter has been better digested some of the points raised by hon. Members could be put into legislation.

Mr. Marks: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I can now conclude quickly. I hope that the county council, the district councils, British Rail, the Ministry of Transport and the Department of the Environment—because the


Greater Manchester structure plan, with three alternatives for transport, is under consideration—will get on with those discussions as quickly as possible.

7.42 p.m.

Dr. Edmund Marshall: The hon. Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) described the Bill as a general purposes measure, which gave hon. Members an opportunity to raise general railway problems affecting their constituencies.
I have one such problem affecting the Snaith part of my constituency. Snaith is a township about seven miles from Goole and has a railway station on the line between Goole and Leeds. The curious thing about that station is that the platforms are very low. There must be a historical reason for that, no doubt going back to the time when we had individual railway companies. The platforms are 2ft. or more below the level of the train doors.
In many stations there would be no problem, because station staff could provide steps at the train doors, but Snaith has been an unmanned station for a number of years and there are no porters or station staff to assist passengers. The availability of steps on the platforms at Snaith station at points where passengers want to join or leave trains depends on chance and I have received a number of complaints from constituents that the difficulty causes considerable inconvenience.
I hope that British Rail will look seriously at that problem. It seems from my first inquiry to the divisional manager of British Rail at Doncaster, who looks after Snaith station, that there is little likelihood of British Rail being able to help. As usual, British Rail has pointed out the not inconsiderable expense that would be involved in building up the platforms at Snaith station.
However, when we are talking about vast electrification of the railways, the development of the high-speed and advanced passenger trains, and so on, it is anachronistic that difficulties are caused because platforms are too low at a little local railway station. Let us try to solve some of the small problems on the railways at the same time as we are making great strides in technical improvements on inter-city services.
As the hon. Member for New Forest guessed, my main interest in the Bill centres on clause 7(1)(d). It seemed that the hon. Member was trying to answer my speech before I had made it, and I find myself in the strange position of having to put some of the arguments to which the hon. Gentleman has already tried to advance counter-arguments.
Clause 7(1)(d) would stop vehicular access over the railway crossing at England Lane, Knottingley, in my constituency, and that proposal is not acceptable to my constituents in the area. If such a closure took place, traffic wishing to use the crossing would, in the main, have to be diverted along a narrow and tortuous road called Spawd Bone Lane, which in one section has no pavements one one side and where there was a fatal road accident not many months ago.
That section of road carries a limit prohibiting vehicles over a certain weight. The limit is significant in relation to the public works depot run by the local authority, Wakefield metropolitan district council, at the southern end of England Lane. All the lorries using that depot use the England Lane level crossing. If the crossing is closed, the lorries will be prohibited from using the narrow end of Spawd Bone Lane because of the weight limit and will have to make a considerable detour along the other part of Spawd Bone Lane to cross the railway at the Womersley Road level crossing in Knottingley. That level crossing already has many problems.

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: The hon. Gentleman has raised a very important point. If the England Lane crossing remained open, with the number of trains to which I referred earlier, which could be passing by, the lorries that the hon. Gentleman mentioned could be tailing back. There could be tremendous traffic delay, even with the crossing open.

Dr. Marshall: The hon. Gentleman is making for me the point that I shall make soon. It is the number of trains going over the level crossings that threatens to cause traffic congestion through the town of Knottingley.
I am grateful for the promoters' undertaking, repeated tonight by the hon. Gentleman, that if the Bill reaches Committee an application will be made there that clause 7(1)(d) be deleted. It would


be very unusual for a Committee not to accede to such a request. We are grateful that that part of the Bill is to be amended.
However, even if the England Lane level crossing remains open to vehicular traffic, some of the problems that I have described will remain, because, owing to the amount of railway traffic going across the level crossing, the gates are closed to road vehicles for a large part of the time. On 6 June, 139 trains passed over the two level crossings in Knottingley. A total of 112 of them were merry-go-round trains carrying coal to, or returning from, the power stations at Eggborough and Drax. At present the railway line through Knottingley provides the only rail route to those power stations, and that means going over the two level crossings.
The Womersley Road level crossing is closed for an average of two and a half minutes when a train passes. That time has been carefully measured by stop-watch. The average closure time at England Lane is a little more, because the gates there are manually operated. Drivers must wait for the crossing keeper to come out of his little hut, he having ascertained that the line is clear, and then he moves first to one gate and then to the other.
With 139 trains crossing and an average delay of two and a half minutes, the level crossings are at present closed for more than five and three-quarter hours during a 24-hour period. But most of the traffic passes during the day rather than the night, so the five and three-quarter hours must be seen as time taken predominantly during the day. The level crossings are closed to road traffic for nearly a quarter of every 24-hour period and more than a quarter of the normal working day.
Road traffic at Womersley Road is much heavier than at England Lane. About 2,500 vehicles wish to cross the level crossing at Womersley Road during a 10-hour daytime period. One can imagine the congestion that builds up when level crossings are closed for more than a quarter of the time and so many vehicles require to cross. Many of those are industrial vehicles; there are industries in the locality which are reached by road only by vehicles going over the level crossing.
As is shown by the figures that I have given, the problem is serious enough already, but it is likely to become much more serious unless action is taken, because a second power station is being built at Drax. Like the hon. Gentleman, I welcome the building of Drax B and the fact that it is to be coal-fired. But all the extra coal to fuel it must go across the level crossings in Knottingley, whether that coal is coming from Selby, West Yorkshire or South Yorkshire. It is the development of Drax rather than the development of the Selby coalfield that threatens to add to the problem of the rail traffic going over those level crossings.
It has been estimated—I think that it is a cautious estimate—that when the new power station at Drax is commissioned there will be an increase of about 33 per cent. in the number of merry-go-round trains going to and from the power stations at Eggborough and Drax, meaning an increase of one-third in the number of such trains going over the level crossings in Knottingley. So long as the only rail route to the power station is through Knottingley, and so long as the trains are bound to use those crossings, the gates will be closed to road traffic for about one-third of every 24-hour period and for a higher fraction of time during the day.
I do not need to point out that that prospect is intensely alarming to the local community, to say the least. To prevent this serious impending problem, action must be taken both by the local highway authority—the West Yorkshire county council—and British Rail. Unfortunately, neither of those public bodies has so far shown any willingness to take action about the problems under its own statutory powers and responsibilities.
I hope that I am not straying too far, but all these matters are interrelated when one considers the rail problem in Knottingley. The highway authority—the county council—which could do so much to alleviate the problem by new road works to improve Spawd Bone Lane and by constructing a new bridge over the railway at Womersley Road has failed so far to meet its responsibilities in this respect. Instead, it has passed the buck to British Railways and proposed that a completely new railway be built at Brayton, near Selby, in the constituency of


the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) in order to provide a much shorter route linking the Selby coal mine with the Drax power stations.
I am told that that proposal would cost more than £9 million to implement in the construction of the new railway. It has been rejected flatly by the chairman of British Railways, Sir Peter Parker, who, in a letter to me dated 23 May wrote:
In conclusion, therefore, the British Railways Board can see no justification for the West Yorkshire County Council's proposal, involving as it would the expenditure of very considerable resources to achieve facilities that duplicate ones the Board already has and that could be provided to the local community at far less cost by other methods.
As British Railways are the only organisation in the country which can seek powers to build and then operate such a new railway, I do not see how the rejection of the proposal by Sir Peter Parker can be regarded as other than final. Therefore it would be foolish for West Yorkshire county council to persist with this proposal, although I understand that it has been raised with the Departments of Energy and Transport and that those two Departments have still to make their response to the county council. I ask that the response be made soon and that it be communicated to me, as one of the local Members of Parliament involved, at the same time as it is communicated to the county council, so that that authority can review the position with regard to its own highway responsibilities in Knottingley.
In fact, I am still awaiting a reply from the county council to a letter which I sent it a month ago about the need for it to undertake the road improvements and new bridge works at Knottingley which I have mentioned. In that connection, I must express my gratitude to the hon. Member for New Forest for saying that if discussions take place about the building of a road bridge at Knottingley, British Railways will be willing to be involved in them, not necessarily with any commitment, but to see whether they can give some help. I accept that as a move in the right direction.
At the same time, British Railways have been reluctant to alleviate the problem threatening to arise at the level crossings in Knottingley. In addition to

the correspondence that I have had with the chairman of British Railways, I have had meetings at Board level in London and at the regional headquarters in York. So far I have detected very little acceptance from British Railways that there is a growing serious problem at the level crossings in Knottingley. They keep trotting out the argument that the amount of traffic will not be any greater than it is now and that Selby coal goes to places other than Drax. However, it is not Selby that is the problem for Knottingley; it is the construction of a second power station at Drax.
I have now arranged a further meeting with representatives of British Railways and the other relevant public bodies, which is to be held during the next week or so. At that meeting, I hope very much that we shall be able to make some progress towards finding an alternative solution to the problem, because there has to be such a solution.
Without going into the ambitious proposals put forward by the West Yorkshire county council, it strikes me that there could be a relatively small adjustment to the rail network connecting with Drax power station, which is on the site of the old and now disused railway line between Goole and Selby. If there were such a small adjustment, it could go a long way to providing greater flexibility in the rail network in that part of Yorkshire and help to achieve a significant reduction in the number of merry-go-round trains passing over the level crossings at Knottingley not only now but more significantly in the time ahead.
As a former employee of the Central Electricity Generating Board, I am perfectly aware of the need for total flexibility in the allocation of coal from pits to power stations, and that there can be no rigid links, with coal from a certain pit always going to a certain power station. There has to be that flexibility, but it seems to me that British Railways will be in a much better position to operate the movements of the merry-go-round trains if they have an alternative route and are not bound to use the one through Knottingley for all the merry-go-round trains that are going to Eggborough and Drax.
This becomes apparent only when one looks at a map of the area. I suggest


that with a very small adjustment to the railway network an alternative rail access could be opened up into Drax, but of course the onus for making such adjustments rests with British Railways. They are the only body who can run the merry-go-round trains. Although the National Coal Board and the Central Electricity Generating Board have a part to play in the coal traffic, it is the British Railways Board that has to take the initiative in deciding which routes are followed by the merry-go-round trains.

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that even without the Drax B power station, trains will still be coming from Selby to both Ferry-bridge and Eggborough and, of course, Knottingley is between Selby and both Ferrybridge and Eggborough.

Dr. Marshall: Yes, but so long as the only power stations to be east of Knottingley are Eggborough and Drax A, the amount of coal going to those stations will be fairly constant, from whatever source it may come.
There is also the point that if an alternative route can be opened up into Drax, it will be possible for trains going from the Gascoigne Wood drift mine for the Selby coalfield to Eggborough to go round via Drax—an alternative route made possible to get to Eggborough.
There are other complicated rail movements, difficult to describe without a map, which would be able to make use of an alternative access to Drax, even though the coal was coming from collieries other than the Selby coal mine. This is due to the need to reverse some of the merry-go-round trains at certain points in the rail network where there are no connecting loops which would help a train to take a left-hand turn at a junction where it could only take a right-hand turn.
The position at the England Lane level crossing in Knottingley, contained in clause 7(1)(d), which is the centre of my interest in the Bill, is already serious. It threatens to become significantly worse unless some action is taken by British Rail and the West Yorkshire county council in their respective spheres of responsibility. Up to this evening, I was feeling disheartened. No willingness was being shown by either body that it was ready to take such action.
British Rail, in particular, has appeared less than ready to acknowledge that its traffic will cause an increasingly serious problem for my constituents in Knottingley. I hope that the House will acknowledge that this debate is a prime opportunity for me, as the constituency Member, to raise these matters on behalf of my constituents. It is also a prime opportunity for British Rail to be more forthcoming and to indicate a greater willingness to co-operate with the local Member of Parliament in trying to solve the problems facing the people in the area that he represents.

8.12 p.m.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: I shall not attempt to follow the complex problems of Knottingley which my hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall) has put so admirably. I shall instead talk about a problem in Bassetlaw which affects a number of my constituents to whom it is of great importance. I refer to clauses 10 and 12 on pages 11 and 12 and schedule 1 to the Bill which requires the alteration of four level crossings in Bassetlaw on the main Doncaster to Gainsborough line. This is not usually a fast express line, but 65 trains a day use the line. The top speed is 60 miles an hour. More importantly, it is a line used for diversions when work is taking place on the main London-Edinburgh line. The fast Inter-City 125 trains are diverted at weekends whenever work is in progress.
The alterations to the level crossings are causing some concern to my constituents. There are four crossings—at North Carr, at Tindall Bank, at Tethering Grass Lane and at Walkeringham. It is at Walkeringham where the real objections are being made by the Walkeringham parish council and by the Bassetlaw district council. The first proposal is that the North Carr crossing should be closed to road traffic from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. the following morning except when flooding takes place on the River Trent and in the pea vining season.
The second proposal is that the Tindall Bank crossing shall be closed completely except for a wicket gate giving access to people on horses and on foot. The Tethering Grass Lane and the Walkeringham crossings are to be closed with a padlock. The keys are to be given to nine local farmers who can unlock the crossing


and take their stock across when flooding occurs or when they need to gain access to the other side of the line.
The objections come especially from the Walkeringham parish council which says that the village will be denied amenity land on the other side of the line and that it will be difficult for villagers to walk to the River Trent. Most of all, the council says it will create a dangerous hazard in the vicinity. In the village of Walkeringham, there are 60 houses, 40 of them council houses. There are many children in the area. The crossing at Walkeringham is, in effect, a barrier between the village and the amenity land on the other side of the railway line. If the farmers are allowed the keys to open the gates and lock them after use, a farmer or a farmworker will sooner or later forget and the crossing will be left open for children to wander on to the railway line. Someone will be killed. There is also the chance that the locks would be vandalised or that children would break them so that farmers would be unable to get their stock across to the other side of the railway line if flooding took place.
Representations have taken place between British Rail and the parish council and the district council over several months. One or two changes have been promised. It was agreed that vegetation on the side of the line would be cleared, making for better visibility, and that whistle boards would be installed to give seven seconds' warning to anyone thinking about crossing the line. It may seem that the villagers are being unnecessarily cautious, but there have been two serious accidents in the area.
Ten years ago, at a crossing nearby at Saundby, a car stalled on the level crossing. Instead of getting out of the car and running, the occupants of the car attempted to push the vehicle. A train hit the car and two people were killed.
Again, last December, according to a report in the Retford Times an accident happened at the Tethering Grass Lane crossing. The headline said "Rider thrown clear as train hits horse". Two 17-year-old girls were riding their horses over the crossing. One escaped with minor injuries when a train appeared

round a corner and struck the rear hind quarters of the horse. The horse was killed instantly. The girl rider was thrown and taken to Gainsborough hospital where she was detained overnight. She was obviously badly shocked and sustained some injuries.
According to the newspaper, the Retford police said that the riders had started to cross when they noticed a train approaching at high speed from the direction of Doncaster. One of the girls managed to cross safely but Miss Richardson's horse was struck on the hind quarters and killed instantly. The horse belonged to a local farmer who said it was a miracle that the girl was not killed or seriously injured. The accident involved the Hall to King's Cross passenger express which had beeen diverted to the Beckingham line because of track works on the main line. The Inter-City 125 trains, which are now diverted, are much quieter, are quicker and approach at fast speeds.
British Rail propose that at Walkeringham, which has a population of 200 literally butting up to the level crossing, the crossing shall be locked with keys accessible only to farmers. Sooner or later, a farmer who is in a hurry or whose stock is going astray, or who simply forgets, will leave the crossing open and a small toddler will wander on the line when an Inter-City train is going past at high speed. The villagers are saying, rightly in my opinion, that the crossing should continue to be manned. They realise that changes have to be made They are not objecting to the closure of Tindall Bank. They do not object so much to the Tethering Grass Lane crossing being padlocked and the farmers possessing the key. But they maintain, as an absolute minimum, that the same proposals should apply at Walkeringham as those put forward in the Bill for North Carr.
This means that the crossing would be manned from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. and that at times of flooding and during the peavining season, when there is heavy traffic, carrying peas from farms to Batchelors in Worksop in my constituency, it should be manned all night. My constituents are not asking too much. The alternative is to close the crossing. The farmers would then be in trouble when the Trent floods,


as it does almost every time there is heavy rain.
British Rail have taken a census of the number of vehicles crossing at Walkeringham. They say that a manned crossing is not justified since only 30 vehicles a day use it. The local parish council has checked with the signalmen and they dispute the figures. The union says that just as many vehicles use that crossing as use the crossing at North Carr. They say that the crossing should be manned because sooner or later there will be an accident.
British Rail say that they cannot be held responsible for trespassers. But if those trespassers are young children who do not know any better and go through an open gate on to the line, British Rail have a duty. I understand the problem of cost. But if cost is to be measured by the lives of children living nearby British Rail cannot justify trivial savings which might put lives at stake. Accidents have already occurred. The villagers are justified in asking for the alteration.

8.21 p.m.

Mr. Peter Snape: I shall confine my remarks to the contentious clause 5 and Works Nos. 1 and 2. My hon. Friends' main objection to the Castlefield curve is that it in some way prejudices the building of the Pic-Vic tunnel. I am a member of the National Union of Railwaymen. I spent most of my railway career in the Manchester area.
In 1971 I was a member of the passenger transport authority. I remember approaching the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) who was then the Minister for Transport, about the Pic-Vic tunnel. I received a sympathetic hearing, but no money. After being elected to the House in 1974 I approached my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley), who was then the Minister of Transport and again I received a sympathetic hearing, but no money. It seems that Manchester's transport problems, and the Pic-Vic tunnel in particular, arouse sympathy but that no money is available to deal with them.
The attitude of my hon. Friends to the Castlefield curve surprises me. Their objections can be summarised in three ways. They imply that the curve does

not give the same advantages to Greater Manchester's transport needs as the Pic-Vic tunnel. Of course it does not. Nobody says that it does. They say that because the curve is part of the transport study permission to construct should not go ahead, but they overlook that there is no direct permission in the Bill to go ahead with construction. It merely smooths the path for the future, when it is necessary or desirable for that construction to go ahead. My hon. Friends seem to think that because of those views any go-ahead at present would be premature.
I am a little fed up with squabbles between councils. They are not confined to Greater Manchester. They happen in Birmingham and in Liverpool. The city of Manchester is Labour controlled. It is squabbling with the Greater Manchester county council, which is Conservative controlled. Different political control does not make much difference when it comes to squabbles. Councils with the same political views often squabble.
I regret that the hon. Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) gave a commitment. The Manchester district council and my union are in favour of the Castlefield curve. Out of deference to the constituency interests of my hon. Friends, I thought that they should speak before me, but I tried to ask my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Morris) whether the construction of the Pic-Vic tunnel was being brought a day nearer by the prevention of construction work on the Castlefield curve.

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: Because of the differences of opinion, it is probably more sensible to withdraw this part of the Bill and have another Bill which enjoys the support of all the people living in the area, than to go ahead when there is schizophrenia in the area about what should happen.

Mr. Snape: I am grateful for that clarification. There is an additional difficulty. My union received a letter a few weeks ago from Mr. Angus Monro, the director of planning for the Greater Manchester council. He said:
Our main concern is that the land required for the Castlefield curve which belonged to British Rail, has already been leased under a long-term contract to a developer. We are concerned that we should have the powers


to prevent any development being started before we have had an opportunity of fully evaluating the merits of the Caslefield curve … I would hope that Members of Parliament would see it as sound common sense that no development should be started on the site which would be aborted in the case of a favourable decision to go ahead with construction.
I appreciate the reasons behind the actions of the hon. Member for New Forest, but I do not believe that in the long-term he is doing Manchester's transport interests any good. He has agreed to the postponement because of the opposition, and I understand that.
The NUR regrets that the Castlefield proposals are to be postponed. For the first time since the construction of the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway, the London and North Western Railway and the Victoria and London Road—now Piccadilly—stations we had an opportunity for a more direct through service. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) says that there is an alternative service, but it is not particularly convenient. There is a diesel multiple unit service between Stockport and Stalybridge.
The possible direct service would have caused difficulties because of the lack of track capacity, particularly on the double track route from Piccadilly to Oxford Road, but at least it would have provided some benefit for the city. It would have provided a few commuters—for example, from my home town of Stockport—with the opportunity of getting through to Manchester Victoria station and beyond.
Of course, it would not have benefited the commercial centre of the city. Only the Pic-Vic tunnel can do that. The action of my hon. Friends and the acquiescence of the hon. Member for New Forest means that not only have we decided not to go ahead with the Pic-Vic tunnel but that we have decided to do nothing further for the railways in Manchester. My union will regard that as bad.

8.28 p.m.

Mr. Albert Booth: I wish to concentrate mainly on the important issue of the Castlefield curve and the possibilities of development of the Pic-Vic. I shall do that if only to illustrate, as have my hon. Friends the Members for Manchester, Moss Side (Mr.

Morton), Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Morris) and Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) that there was a belief by a considerable number of people, including three who have spoken tonight in the debate, that the Castlefield curve was to be regarded as an alternative to the development of any other rail transport system for central Manchester and an alternative to any direct rail access to central Manchester.
Whether or not those people were correct in that belief, and whether there was an alternative, their actions in raising that matter in the House tonight have resulted in an undertaking being given that the provisions in the Bill for works Nos. 1 and 2 will be withdrawn in Committee. So the situation that we now have to consider is slightly different. It is whether, by withdrawing that part of the Bill, the proposers have contributed in any way towards an improvement in the rail services in central Manchester, or whether they have set that back for a very long time, or at least until such time as another British Railways Bill can be brought before the House.
If the proposition upon which my hon. Friends stated their objections to the provisions in the Bill for the Castlefield curve was correct, namely, that by proceeding with it there would be no possibility of proceeding with an alternative and better one, that is a serious matter. The terms in which the sponsor spoke, particularly in his reference to half a loaf being better than none, must raise the fears of many interested people that there is no alternative and that they will be left with none for so long as it will take to prepare another Bill.
If the proposition were correct the argument would be overwhelming. No one could suggest, after having made an objective study of the alternatives, that the Castlefield curve would be anything other than a very limited improvement in terms of rail access in Manchester compared with the Pic-Vic line or any other tunnel development that would have provided access to stations in the centre of Manchester.
But it is unfair to suggest, as has been suggested in the debate, that British Railways were proceeding on the proposition that the Castlefield curve was in some way better. I can find no evidence that British


Railways were proceeding on such a presumption. When I examined their comments on the medium-term rail studies—I admit that these were initial comments—I found a very clear indication that British Railways regarded the only real solution to the problem of city centre distribution as the encouragement of greater use of the rail system by the linking of the northern and southern rail networks across the city in the form of the Pic-Vic tunnel or some similar scheme.
I take it from that, and I shall be interested to see whether I am contradicted, that in this Bill British Railways were making provision for the Castlefield curve in the belief that the Pic-Vic system, or a similar system, would not be going ahead, or would not be going ahead in the immediate future. I would therefore have welcomed from the sponsor an assurance that this provision would be put in the Bill in that spirit and with that intention, and not in any way to frustrate development at the earliest possible date of an alternative and better rail system from central Manchester.
I believe that the development of such a system is of considerable importance, in terms not only of convenience for travellers but of employment in the central Manchester area. I invite the House to consider for a moment the effect on employment in central London if London Transport had to close down the Tube system so that there was no access by rail. It is only too obvious that, given the problems of modern conurbation transport, once the conurbation develops to a certain size with a certain population density, a rail system, probably a tunnel system, but certainly an inner city rail system giving access to a wider rail network, could make a considerable contribution to the employment potential of that city.
Before long the House will require some kind of assurance that reconsideration is being given to this problem not only by British Railways and the local authorities concerned but by the Government. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will give some indication tonight that the Government appreciate the size of the problem in terms of the convenience of urban transport, employment implications, the inevitable change that will take place with

the increase in fuel costs, and the environmental hazards created by heavy lorries in our city centres. All these elements require a reconsideration of the priority to be given to rail transport within the city centre.
The other feature that has been surprising in this debate is the assumption that the system would go ahead with the passing of the Bill. The Bill, if I have read it correctly, would not have committed British Railways to proceed with the Castlefield curve. I think that British Railways would, in any case, have been willing to examine alternatives to provide a better rail service. This Bill, in its present terms—here I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape)—enables British Railways to frustrate a developer who has a contract enabling him to develop land that would be required should British Railways seek to go ahead with the Castlefield curve.
Without that there is always the possibility that ere British Railways may prepare its No. 3 Bill, or the next Bill that might have the same effect, that developer might have started work. This does not mean that the development could not take place, but it is fair to assume, as I do, that it could take place only at considerably greater public expense. That would be very much to be regretted.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: My right hon. Friend has identified a very real point in this context. It is a point that would provoke concern even among the Manchester Members who have spoken in the debate. I wonder whether the sponsor, the hon. Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson), would deal with this point. If there is a developer and this proposal is designed to frustrate the acquisition of land, which would be needed for the development of the Castlefield curve, I would like to hear the detailed background.

Mr. Booth: I hope that we shall advance to that point before the night is out. I am certainly proceeding on that assumption. If I have read the Bill correctly in its present form it gives British Railways the right to prevent a development taking place. There is an existing contractual right for that development.


and presumably that contractual right will be set aside by the Bill.
The Bill is valuable in enabling us to debate this subject. It will go into Committee, which will provide time for evaluation, and I am sure that those who make submissions to the Committee will raise some of these points, which can be considered in detail along with the alternatives. I also hope that the Government will regard that as allowing them time to consider what priorities ought to be given to the question of rail transport within central Manchester.
I wish to raise two other points. One concerns section 13, which appears to enable the stopping of footpaths by British Railways providing that the consent of the owners of the land and of the occupiers of those houses abutting both sides of the footpath is obtained. Although I should be the first to acknowledge the primary interest in the stopping up of a footpath of those whose houses abut it, I would never concede that they are the only ones with an interest in footpaths.
Over the years, on the question of access to the countryside and rights of way, the House has on many occasions debated the importance of maintaining footpaths. I hope, therefore, that when the Bill is being considered in Committee further thought will be given to clause 13 with a view to ensuring that other interests are consulted before footpaths are closed, that is to say, interests other than those of owners of land on either side and of houses abutting them.
As more and more people turn to the countryside for their leisure, a trend which we should seek to encourage, we must attach growing importance to the maintenance of definitive footpaths. I suggest, therefore, that we should examine with greater zeal any proposal coming before us which would enable a footpath to be closed.
I turn now to clause 44 and the related part of schedule 3 which contain a provision which will enable the maximum fine for refusal or neglect to quit a carriage on arrival at destination to be raised from £25 to £50. This seems to me to require explanation.
I do not doubt that a number of possible explanations could be offered. Perhaps those who propose it think that it is now a much more serious offence to

fail to quit a carirage on arrival at destination than it was when they brought a Bill before the House a year ago. On the other hand, they may expect that we shall have such rip-roaring inflation before they have time to bring in another Bill that, when the provisions of the present Bill take effect, the £50 will be worth only what £25 was worth when they brought them in. At least, it requires some explanation. I recognise that British Rail has to cover a lot of things each year in its one Bill coming before the House, but that in no way excuses it from explaining the purpose of such changes in the law as that.
This has been a valuable debate. It has enabled many hon. Members to raise points of general significance and of particular importance to groups of their constituents. I am optimistic that British Rail will seek to resolve many of the problems that they have raised, preferably when the matter is before the Committee or, if not then, in the near future. I hope also that our proceedings will encourage British Rail and other bodies to pay considerable heed to Members of Parliament when they raise matters that affect their constituents.

8.43 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): At the outset, I take this opportunity to welcome the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) to his new duties at the Dispatch Box as Opposition spokesman on transport. I am surprised to see him make his debut on the British Railways (No. 2) Bill, but he has taken the first opportunity and I am sure that we shall have many contributions from him on weightier matters of transport policy which come before us.
This is in itself an important and valuable Bill, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) on the way he presented it and put forward the case on behalf of British Rail. Plainly, this is not the occasion for a general debate on railway policy, but I noted with interest the views on railway policy in general with which my hon. Friend began. His interest in nationalised industries, including the railways, is well known in the House. I noted also my hon. Friend's approval of plans for electrification of the railways and his support for the Channel tunnel.

Mr. Ron Lewis: What is wrong with that?

Mr. Clarke: I did not say that there was anything wrong with it. Nevertheless, I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has made his mark on the debate, too. I was about to say that my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest knows that the Government are, together with British Rail, at present carrying out a study of electrification. We expect the first results of that study to come this summer, and in the light of that study we shall move on to make decisions about British Rail's desire to extend the electrification of the system.
As regards the Channel tunnel, the Government have received—as the public have, since they have been published—British Rail's proposals for a modified version of the Channel tunnel project. Those proposals are at present being considered. We expect further proposals to come forward because the European Commission is carrying out some work on the Channel tunnel. When the various proposals are put forward by the Commission we shall consider the options and see what progress can be made on the tunnel.
The Bill is not a Government measure and I shall not answer the debate. The Government do not have a committed view, certainly not on the constituency points that have been put forward. Nevertheless, I have listened with great attention to the debate on the general problems of transport in central Manchester. That is a serious matter and one which, I can assure those who have spoken, will be considered properly inside the Department.
It appears that a decision has been taken to exclude the Castlefield curve from the Bill. Again I emphasise that the Government are neutral on that point between British Rail on the one hand and the objectors on the other. As a spectator, it is perhaps unfortunate that Manchester city council and the Labour Members representing Manchester constituencies are somewhat at loggerheads with British Rail, the passenger transport executive, the National Union of Railwaymen and the Greater Manchester council. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest that some attempt should be made to find an agreement from with-

in Manchester about people's precise requirements. This would be in everyone's interests in that city.
The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) is an expert on railway matters. He should be heeded when he gives a warning that we should not conduct the discussion in such a way that nothing is achieved in central Manchester. I am not sure whether the Bill would necessarily promote the Piccadilly-Victoria line, or bring it forward in any way, desirable though that project is considered by many hon. Members.
I cannot enter into other constituency points. As far as the Bill as a whole is concerned the Government do have a view on that. We support the Bill. We invite the House to give it a Second Reading. The points raised that are still outstanding can be considered in Committee. It would be desirable if the Bill could make progress and was allowed a Second Reading.

8.47 p.m.

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: With the leave of the House, I should like to reply. I deal first with the point raised by the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) on the scale of penalties. I am advised that they are in line with the Home Office scale of penalties for similar offences. That is why the figures appear in the Bill.
The right hon. Gentleman and others, including the hon. Member for Manchester, Moss Side (Mr. Morton), the right hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Morris), the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) and the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape), raised, with differing view points, the question of works Nos. 1 and 2, the Manchester rail link. It is with a heavy heart that I have given an assurance on behalf of British Rail. The British Railways Board does not wish deliberately to cave in, but it recognises that a short-term answer is provided, although it does not meet the ideal circumstances that would be created by the Pic-Vic link.
Were it not for the strong opposition that the Bill has run into on that issue, the promoters would like this legislation to remain intact and be discussed in the normal way. However, because of the


urgency indicated by the British Railways Board, and because there is so much difference of opinion, it Is felt that it would be wiser to seek leave in Committee to withdraw that clause so that there can be time for further discussion.
I accept the point made by the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East that there will be much disappointment over this issue. I assure him that there is much disappointment in British Railways Board that it has been necessary to make this accommodation. However, there is no point in pressing ahead with something that apparently does not enjoy very much local support.

Mr. Snape: If the two sides in the Greater Manchester area can come together before the Committee stage, I presume that the hon. Gentleman will agree to proceed in the normal way.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: I accept that olive branch. It is a question of seeking leave to withdraw this part of the Bill. However, I hope that tonight it will go through on Second Reading as part of the Bill. I hope, too, that it will be possible to carry out the hon. Gentleman's proposal. That would be welcomed by the British Railways Board. The Board recognises that the scheme is nothing like as good as it would have liked to see in the 1972 proposals. However, we shall not go over the history now. We know what happened. This is an attempt to solve some of the problems by means of a short-time solution. The judgments of Solomon are never ideal. Clearly, there is a problem. I support the point made by the hon. Gentleman. I hope that that deals with the criticisms of the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness.
The hon. Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall) referred to the complicated situation at England Lane crossing in his constituency. He pointed out that a difficult situation would still exist in Knottingley, whatever happened, as a result of the growth of the coal trade, revolving around the opening of the complex at Selby and the fact that it would serve a large number of power stations. I regret that the Board cannot be persuaded to look again at the idea of moving the traffic from east to west, rather than starting from the west.
I should like to take up the point about a bridge that might bring the Womersley road across the railway link. I gave an assurance that the Board would be prepared to be represented at discussions. It is worth thinking about this matter further. The cost of building an additional rail link would be about £9 million to £10 million. The bridge would not be cheap. It would mean a great deal of construction work. We are talking about one-ninth or one-tenth of that figure. Even taking into account the points made by the hon. Gentleman, this is a long-term problem. However, this may provide a solution.

Dr. Edmund Marshall: Before a bridge can be considered the highway authority must show willingness to go ahead with the bridge. So far the West Yorkshire county council has set its face against such a bridge.

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: West Yorkshire county council published a document dealing with the Selby coalfield transportation issues. The hon. Gentleman has a copy in his hand. In that document the bridge suggestion is dismissed in three sentences. I see that the hon. Gentleman agrees. If that proposal is to go ahead, others must discuss it, and West Yorkshire county council must look again at the problem. I support the hon. Gentleman's view on that matter. My earlier assurance still stands.
The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), when dealing with clauses 10 and 12, rightly stressed the question of safety. I represent a constituency in which a large number of animals and people roam about comparatively freely. Oil companies are now drilling for oil there. Unfortunately, accidents are already taking place as a result. Therefore, we must meet the safety aspects. We have taken careful note of the hon. Gentleman's points about the manning of the crossing, and further consideration will be given to that between now and the Committee stage. In Committee I may be able to give the result of that consideration. This is a material matter.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness that this has been a valuable occasion. I take advantage of this opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary on his appointment. I thank him for his


comments about the railway system in general. I hope that the flush of enthusiasm that we have all demonstrated this evening will not be lost in the mists of time. It is about time that the railway system of this country carried—as I know it is willing to carry—its fair share of the load. The days of pouring good energy wastefully on to the roads of this country when we have a first-class permanent way—which has to be maintained, whether it is used or not—are surely drawing to an end.
The Bill gives our railway system a nice, gentle push into the future at a critical time, and I very much hope that the measure will receive a Second Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

PRISONERS (SUMMONSES)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

8.55 p.m.

Mrs. Jill Knight: I welcome this opportunity to inform the House of a situation in one of Her Majesty's prisons which, if allowed to develop and spread through all of them, will have at least four extremely serious effects. First, recruitment and staffing of the prison service will suffer. Secondly, administration of our prisons will suffer. Thirdly, the courts, which, as this House knows, are already under very great stress, will be forced to carry even greater case loads. Fourthly, the public purse will not be able to avoid—even at this time of rightly enforced cuts and savings in public expenditure—paying out more and more money for purposes which no reasonable person could support.
The facts which led me to bring up this matter are as follows. On 24 August last a fight broke out between two prisoners in the exercise yard at Winson Green prison in Birmingham. Hon. Members will readily appreciate that when fights break out between prisoners it is abso-

lutely essential for the security of the prison that the fight is ended quickly before it spreads. Two prisoners fighting can very easily become four and then eight. Bearing in mind the staffing position, the House will realise how important it is that such disputes among prisoners should be broken up and ended at once. The prison officers moved in and separated the prisoners, and put them into separate cells.
My constituent, Mr. William Stubbs, was one of the officers who separated the prisoners. He was only doing his duty and he carried out this duty with no undue violence whatever. The elder of the two prisoners involved in the fracas knew perfectly well that that should be the end of the matter, but the younger, Moseley, subsequently complained to the governor about the prison officers who had broken up the fight. As is usual in such circumstances, the governor directed that the matter should be investigated. The allegations were investigated by a member of the governor grade, who found them to be false and malicious.
The board of visitors at the prison was subsequently informed and the matter came before it, as indeed it must. That, one would have thought, would be the end of the whole incident. However, on 9 October William Stubbs and three of his colleagues received summonses to attend Birmingham magistrates' court to answer charges of assault against Moseley. There were some delays and adjournments but the case was heard in mid-January by the stipendiary magistrate at the Birmingham law courts. All four prison officers were acquitted with no case to answer. I draw the attention of the House to the words written to me by Mr. A. Hooper who wrote as the Birmingham branch secretary of the Prison Officers' Association. He said:
It is a very strange situation where honourable men can have allegations made against them by those whom society has placed behind prison bars, and made to defend themselves, not once nor twice, but three times.
He goes on:
It is all too easy to say, ' They had no need to worry.'
Indeed, that is perfectly true. All the men involved knew quite well that no charges of that kind could stand up against them


for five minutes. But as Mr. Hooper says:
These four men, their wives and families, have had to live with the stress and strain that such a charge—with all the permutations of what could have happened if they had not been exonerated a third time—might mean not once nor twice, but three times.
It is very much on behalf of the prison officers that I am bringing this case to the attention of the House tonight.
No one was in the least surprised by the result of the court case, but some forebodings were expressed as to what the implications for the future might be now that a long established prison rule has been flouted. There should be no doubt on this point whatever. Prison standing order 17B1 says:
An inmate will not be allowed to initiate a private criminal prosecution of any kind, either against a member of staff or another inmate or a person outside the establishment and governors should take steps to ensure so far as possible that neither an inmate nor a legal adviser takes advantage of any facility granted for another purpose to initiate such proceedings.
The rules are absolutely clear. Summonses must not and shall not be brought by prisoners against people who are in charge of them. It is easy to see why that rule exists.
I make it clear that I would in no way support the suggestion that no redress should be available to prisoners who feel themselves to be badly served or even assaulted. The point about the prison rules, and the reason I suggest that they should be followed in all cases, is that a prisoner has at least four very firm and clear ways by which he can pursue a complaint.
First, he can make a complaint to the governor, as Moseley did. When that happens the complaint is always properly investigated. Secondly, he can make an application to see either a member of the board of visitors or indeed the whole board. The board of visitors could be aptly described as a panel of inspectors which is there to see that all is going well in the prison. The prisoner can appeal to it at any time.
Thirdly, a prisoner has the somewhat powerful and rather unusual ability to petition the Home Secretary. Finally, he can write to his Member of Parliament. Indeed, Members of this House will have received many letters—as I have—from

prisoners asking them to take up one case or another and investigate them. I know of no hon. Member who would fail to do his duty in that regard by taking up a prisoner's complaint. Therefore, it is untrue to say that the prisoner needs to be able to bring a summons in a law court to see that his rights are protected. The rule exists in the prison regulations.
How did Moseley get round the rule? He did so by getting a relative to take out a summons in his place. Another case has now arisen. An older prisoner at Winson Green—and on the information I have I believe that it was this older prisoner who was behind the earlier summons by Moseley—is named Costello. He has employed the same technique to summon three prison officers, one of whom is my luckless constituent, poor Mr. Stubbs. That prisoner has declared that in the pipeline are summonses against the governor of Winson Green, the governor of Featherstone prison, the governor of Stafford prison, and two Home Office officials.
This situation is outrageous. I believe that it is a measure of the flimsiness of Costello's complaints that the summons which apparently is about to be issued against the governor of Winson Green relates to a charge of theft. No doubt hon. Members will be surprised to hear that the governor of one of Her Majesty's prisons is said to be involved in theft. However, it turns out that the case rests on the fact that prisoner Costello wrote a letter, not on prison notepaper but on ordinary notepaper, for transmission outside the prison.
The House knows that censorship of a prisoner's mail takes place. The mail was inspected, and it was decided by the governor that the letter could not be allowed to go outside the prison. Instead, the letter was clipped to the prisoner's file. In those circumstances it is outrageous to accuse a prison governor of stealing a letter.
I wish to draw to the attention of the House the effect of this malicious nonsense against prison officers. I wish to read a short excerpt from a letter written by my constituent Mr. William Stubbs. Mr. Stubbs says in that letter:
It is with deep concern that I once again find myself the subject of a private criminal prosecution initiated as it was by a convicted prisoner despite the protection from malicious


prosecution that section 17B1 of standing orders was designed to give me as a prison officer. I personally do not fear the legal out-come of this prosecution as I do, and always will have, the utmost faith in our British system of justice. Unfortunately, however, this faith cannot prevent the trauma that is being shared by my family. My wife's initial reaction was one of disgust and fear that this should have been allowed to happen again and the fear that comes from realising what the public reaction will be on this, our second time around. My wife and children are intelligent people and we all therefore share the same knowledge that, human nature being what it is, a lot of the mud will stick.
One takes the point made by poor Mr. Stubbs, because when these cases are reported in the press and it comes out that a certain prison officer has been twice accused of assault, the matter is very serious. I believe that these men need protection and that they should not be exposed to such treatment. Prison officers undertake a very difficult—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): Order. The hon. Lady said that charges were proceeding in this matter. In that case the matter is sub judice and we are not allowed to discuss the matter in the House. It was not until the hon. Lady was well into her remarks that I appreciated that charges had been preferred.

Mrs. Knight: I am grateful for the Chair's ruling. I shall not refer to the proceedings. I wish to make the point, however, that prison officers carry out a difficult and often dangerous job. They are far from well paid. In fact, the relevant Minister wrote to me earlier in the month telling me that Mr. Justice May is currently inquiring into the state of prison services in the United Kingdom. No doubt the problem I have been outlining will come to his notice. I fear that if this situation continues, a serious situation will arise because many prison officers will undoubtedly resign from the service.
In addition, it should not be forgotten that prisoners suffer greatly when staffing levels go down. When there are insufficient prison officers, prisoners spend a far greater period of time in their cells. There have been times when education programmes have been cut back because of staffing levels. That hardship underlines the point that I made earlier about

administration. If, for example, three senior prison officers are called into court—as well they might be in circumstances of this sort—at one and the same time, the administration of the prison could be placed under serious stress. The courts will have to carry an even greater load if the summonses continue. It is true that the large majority of prison inmates want to live out their time in prison with as little trouble as possible. However, there is undoubtedly a minority who rejoice in twisting the tail of prison officers and those in authority over them. I fear for the implications in the matter.
The cost to the public is liable to be great. Court cases do not come cheap. Prisoners are always taken under escort to and from court and a warder must remain with them throughout the court proceedings. The malicious prisoners with nothing else to do—after all, they are "doing time" and they are not particularly bothered to save it—have every reason to pursue such a vendetta.
Prison officers must be afforded legal aid—as must prisoners. The expense of that is not inconsiderable. Witnesses have to be reimbursed and the implications of cost involved and plain to see. However, I shall not pursue that point now. I know that the Minister is well aware of these matters.
We cannot allow convicted felons serving time in our gaols to yank—whenever the fit might take them—the prison officers in charge of them into court to face trumped up and malicious charges. The rule to which I have referred is introduced to protect prison staff from such mischief and that rule must be reinforced and properly applied. It is not enough to assure prison officers that in any such future cases they will receive legal representation and that their costs will be paid. If widespread resignation of prison staff is to be avoided, if the staff are to be alleviated from this stress and if we are to return to the rule which was framed for their protection a way should be found to restore that rule.

9.13 p.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Leon Brittan): I welcome the opportunity to discuss the implications for the prison service of the fact that there have been several recent instances of private prosecutions being initiated by prisoners


—or by others acting on their behalf—against prison officers. There have also been one or two instances of prisoners initiating private prosecutions against other prisoners but it is, of course, the private prosecution of prison officers that my hon. Friend is—understandably—most concerned about and it is on that matter that I propose to concentrate.
I can well understand the concern and anxiety of prison staff and their families who faced with the prospect of a prisoner being able to bring an officer before a criminal court as a defendant, when the officer has done no more than carry out in a conscientious and responsible way the difficult work of a prison officer. On the other hand, there have to be safeguards against misconduct by prison staff, and none of us, least of all my hon. Friend, would wish to suggest that prison officers should in any way be above the law.
The first question to be asked, therefore, is whether there exists adequate machinery for prisoners to complain of alleged misconduct by prison officers and for such complaints to be dealt with in a proper manner. Only in the light of the answer to that question can one consider whether the right to bring private prosecutions against prison officers would be a necessary further protection for prisoners or would merely provide an opportunity for unjustified, unnecessary and often malicious harassment of prison officers.
The existing avenues of complaint available to prisoners within the prison system are the right to make an application to the governor, to the board of visitors or to the visiting officer of the Secretary of State and the right of petition to the Secretary of State. Where a complaint amounts to an allegation of serious misconduct against a member of staff the prisoner must naturally provide sufficient details for the complaint to be investigated and is required to do this in writing to the governor.
Normally, such a complaint is investigated internally in the first place by a member of the governor grades of the prison service, but in appropriate cases the investigation may be carried out by a member of the prison service from outside the establishment or referred at the outset to the police. If an internal in-

vestigation shows there to be substance in an allegation of criminal conduct, the police are then called in and the ordinary processes of law ensue. I believe that those arrangements are sufficient to ensure that cases of serious misconduct by prison staff are properly dealt with.
Moreover, after a prisoner has made his complaint through the internal channels and the matter has been investigated, it is still open to him to write to his Member of Parliament or to a legal adviser with a view to instituting civil proceedings, and the matter may be aired in that way, even if the prison authorities and the police have decided that there is no case against the staff concerned.
I am aware of the argument that a prisoner's use of the internal procedure for complaints could be inhibited by the existence of the disciplinary offence of making a false and malicious allegation. I emphasise that such charges are rarely brought and in order to be proved require evidence both that the allegation is false and that the prisoner made it knowing it to be false, or recklessly, that is, not caring whether it was true or false.
The prisoner who has good grounds for complaint is not at risk, and where a prisoner genuinely but mistakenly believes that staff have been guilty of misconduct, he is not liable to be charged with making a false and malicious allegation, even if his opinion is not supported on investigation. Those arrangements are designed to ensure that serious allegations are properly investigated, while providing a protection for staff against damaging and unfounded allegations.
In view of the availability of the channels of complaint referred to by my hon. Friend and which I have outlined, it is difficult to see any legitimate justification for the launching by prisoners of private prosecutions against prison officers.
Attempts by prisoners to launch private prosecutions are not entirely new, though until the recent cases to which my hon. Friend has referred, we are aware of none that has resulted in court proceedings. Although prisoners, as a class, are not debarred by law from bringing private prosecutions, rule 33(2) of the 1964 prison rules precludes communication by a prisoner with any outside person without the leave of the Secretary of State, and that is the basis for


the long-standing prison standing order I7B1, which provides that prisoners will not be allowed to initiate such proceedings.
Perhaps it is right that I should clarify the position and explain that whereas the prison rules have statutory force, the standing orders do not have statutory force although they are obviously within the limits provided by the prison rules. In any event, the standing order to which my hon. Friend referred provides that prisoners will not be allowed to initiate such proceedings. To this end, governors are instructed to take all necessary steps to ensure that prisoners are not given facilities to achieve that, and do not make use of facilities provided for other purposes.
My hon. Friend will, however, recognise that there can never be any absolute guarantee—as indeed the recent cases to which she referred have demonstrated—that staff will be able invariably to prevent a prisoner instructing a solicitor or a relative to initiate a private prosecution. Despite the precautions that are taken, messages are from time to time smuggled out and except where there is reason to devote special attention, with all the problems for resources that that involves, to the monitoring of a prisoner's visits, much that is said by the prisoner and his visitor will not be heard by prison staff.
In the Birmingham cases to which my hon. Friend referred there was an added but significant complication. The prosecutions were initiated by persons on the outside, but the informations were laid before a magistrate in each case in the name of the prisoner. Thus we were faced with a situation in which, by no direct action of his own, the prisoner had become a private prosecutor—and as such he was legally entitled to all the relevant facilities specified in the prison rules for a party to legal proceedings. I recognise to the full that to a prison officer facing charges arising out of events that occurred in the prison it matters little whether the information was laid in the name of the prisoner or in the name of a person outside acting on his behalf. But my hon. Friend will appreciate that any measures which one might contemplate taking as part of prison administration to prevent prosecutions by prisoners would not

necessarily be effective against a person operating from outside.
Where an officer becomes the subject of a private prosecution in the course of his official duties, the Home Office gives speedy and careful consideration to the question of his legal representation or assistance with his legal costs. In each of the three cases that have occurred in the past nine months, the Home Office has offered to arrange legal representation at public expense, or, if the officers had already instructed solicitors, to bear the costs on a criminal legal aid basis.
The criminal law already contains a number of safeguards against malicious or frivolous prosecutions. First and foremost, there is the magistrate's discretion to refuse to issue process when an information is laid before him, He does not have to issue a summons automatically. If a summons is issued the defendant may contest the charge in summary trial or, in the case of an offence that may be tried at the Crown court, contest the committal proceedings and submit that there is no case to answer.
There is also the power of the Director of Public Prosecutions to take over a prosecution and, if he considers it inappropriate to proceed, to offer no evidence. The Attorney-General may also intervene and enter a nolle prosequi, though this power is used only rarely.
Further deterrents to malicious or frivolous prosecutions lie in the unsuccessful prosecutor's liability for costs or for civil damages for malicious prosecution. In certain circumstances there may be the possibility of prosecuting for perjury the prisoner and any witnesses called on his behalf. It would also be possible for a prisoner who had brought an unsuccessful prosecution against a prison officer, or who had appeared as a witness in a prosecution brought by someone outside the prison, to be charged with the disciplinary offence of making a false and malicious allegation if the circumstances warranted that.
I welcome the opportunity to make it quite clear that if a prosecution is brought, in spite of the instructions laid down in the orders relating to the conduct of prisoners, there are sanctions which can be readily used.
Although we believe that these safeguards in general operate satisfactorily,


either as deterrents to exclude unfounded prosecutions or to cut them short when instituted, and prevent the abuse in the calling of witnesses to which my hon. Friend referred, we have considered in what other ways private prosecutions against prison staff might be restricted.
One possibility would be to require the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions to such prosecutions. Attractive though this may appear, it carries certain disadvantages, and by that I mean disadvantages for prison officers as much as for anyone else. The essence of the existing safeguards to which I have referred is that unfounded charges, if they even reach a court, are likely to be sifted out fairly quickly.
However, I doubt whether prison staff would welcome a position where they knew that allegations had been made to the Director of Public Prosecutions, which he in turn would be bound to pass to the police for investigation if they had not already been the subject of police inquiries, with the inevitable consequence of the allegations hanging over the heads of the officers for even longer than applies at present.
It would also be unusual to have legislation imposing the obligation that the Director of Public Prosecutions should give his consent for such prosecutions because, although there are a number of statutes requiring such consent, invariably these operate in relation to specified offences rather than in favour of a particular class of defendants. A change in this direction could well lead other groups of persons such as police officers and doctors who find themselves in a similarly vulnerable position to seek similar treatment.
Even if a half-way course were adopted and prosecutions of prison officers by prisoners did not actually require the consent of the DPP but were merely referred to him with a view to his intervention and

direction that no evidence be offered, he would still feel obliged, I am advised, to refer the matter to the police for investigation and report. Not only would this lead to a considerable increase in police investigations within prisons; it would also tend to lengthen the time scale during which the prison officers would be subjected to suspicion. I imagine that neither of these developments would be welcomed by the staff.
Whilst I fully recognise the very real fears and anxieties of prison officers to which my hon. Friend has given expression this evening, I believe it is important that we should keep this matter in perspective. We know at present of only a very small number or cases—three in fact—in which private prosecutions have been successfully launched even against prison officers, and in none of these cases to date has the prosecution resulted in a full trial, let along the conviction of a prison officer. In the light of this experience, I do not believe it can be said that the existing well tried procedures and safeguards aimed at preventing prisoners from instituting private prosecutions while providing adequate internal remedies for complaints against prison staff are seriously defective. We shall of course continue to watch the situation very carefully and be ready to respond if it appears that in spite of the regulations and in spite of the protections prisoners are succeeding in circumventing the present restrictions.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this matter, and I hope that she and the Prison Officers' Association will accept my assurance that we shall continue to give all possible support to staff who may be placed in the position of having to defend actions justifiably taken in the course of their duties.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Nine o'clock